Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Sci-Fi

Stargate Atlantis Coming This Summer 323

Posted by CmdrTaco from the here's-hoping dept.
boog3r writes "According to this and SCIFI there is a new Stargate series on its way to your local passive viewing device this summer. Quickie for all the click-deficient types: "In the new series, a secret base left by the originators of the Stargate is discovered in the most unlikely of places -- on Earth, buried among the ruins of the legendary city of Atlantis." Sounds fun to me! I found more info here and here. Take these tidbits with a grain of salt, much misinformation about the new series is circulating right now. I just hope this great franchise does not go the way of Star Trek, post Roddenberry."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stargate Atlantis Coming This Summer More

Stargate Atlantis Coming This Summer

Comments Filter:

  • SG-1 and Jack (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BigHungryJoe ( 737554 )
    I love Stargate SG-1.

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

    • Re:SG-1 and Jack *Spoiler* (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:28AM (#8349148)
      I mean, really Stargate isn't all that "good" as far as TV goes, but for some reason, I too love Stargate.

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

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

        My wife asked why would they kill her off. I told her probably cause she is headed to do something else. Janet was a decent character, but she was often just a bit character in the show. If they want a beloved character to die, but cause the least impact to the show, Janet was th

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

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

    • All marketing.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @12:21PM (#8349399) Homepage Journal
      They knew advertising killing off a main character would get audience share..

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

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

      Putting it on earlier in the evening would help though...
    • .. maybe we can let a few people still enjoy watching the show without knowing the ending.

      (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... if ever there was a time I wanted to reach through the screen and strangle someone...)
    • id anyone watch the new one last night? I missed the ending. Is Jack really dead? He was my favorite character.

      That means you're three weeks behind the UK which is extremely unusual. Heroes (part 1) was shown 3rd February on Sky 1.

  • Step through the gate (Score:5, Funny)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:21AM (#8349094) Homepage Journal
    And drown at the bottom of the ocean?

    Count me out!

  • "go the way of Star Trek post-Roddenberry" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:23AM (#8349109)
    Has the Stargate series creator died yet? How is this analogy appropriate in any way if not, except to function in the capacity of allowing the author to express his/her feelings on Star Trek in an unrelated post?

    • Re:"go the way of Star Trek post-Roddenberry" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jahf ( 21968 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:46AM (#8349253) Journal
      Because the poster is worried that the series may have a significant drop in quality due to bad producer decisions, much like what happened to ST after G. Roddenberry was no longer in direct creative control (which started happening shortly before he passed). Many ST fans felt that the ST franchise tried to become over-techie ("Jordions") and derivative after that.

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

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

      Hey SciFi ... if you want to continue a franchise, why don't you go buy FireFly and kill off Atlantis, and anything similar to Tremors. It would be nice to have that series get their real conclusion and you might almost repair the damage done with Farscape's cancellation. Now -that- is an unrelated post.
      • The reason why the original star trek was good was more due to the work of people like Harve Bennett and DC fontana and in the movies Nicholas Meyer.

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

      • I like this season (last night being an exception) overall...

        Last night's episode was one of the best I've seen in all the seasons, and this season actually has some of the worst episodes, which got me worried for a time that SCI-FI had screwed up another series. I was actually taken aback by the intensity of Carter's reaction to the death of the doctor and the quality to some of the dialogue. The ambiguity of the documentary maker's intentions and the crew's reactions were nicely done. There's always s

  • I like SG-1... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ianoo ( 711633 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:26AM (#8349136) Journal
    It's much more watchable than most of the rubbish that seems to come out of Paramount's Star Trek franchise these days. I find Enterprise totally unwatchable and couldn't even be bothered to see the last film in the cinemas. I made the right decision too, cos the DVD was a major dissapointment.

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

    I will, of course, be watching Atlantis as Stargate and its spin-offs are still some of the most watchable sci-fi about at the moment. I just wouldn't have taken it in quite the same direction if it were left up to me.
    • s/Egyption/Egyptian. Maybe I ought to get a G5 so I get squiggly red underlines when I misspell something on a form.

    • Re:I like SG-1... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FosterSJC ( 466265 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:37AM (#8349201)
      It's a shame my mod points just expired, as this is quite insightful. You'll notice the same demystification occurring in the Star Wars franchise... Metachloriates (sp?), little life forms, are now responsible for the force and the virgin birth of Anekin, instead of it simply being the way things are in the universe... a natural balance. But perhaps the veiwing majority prefers the tech aspect of scifi. They want to know how warp speed works and how dematerialization works, etc. Perhaps TV is itself responsible in part for taking the burden of imagination off of the viewer and putting onto the writers, etc. Special effects budgets could be better spent paying more talented writers.

      • Re:I like SG-1... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @01:54PM (#8349953)
        But perhaps the veiwing majority prefers the tech aspect of scifi.

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

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

      • Re:I like SG-1... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bar-agent ( 698856 )
        Star Wars fans are against the de-mystification. We're like "Midichlorians? WTF? No way, this shit is mystical, man! George, you a-hole!"

    • Then again.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:54AM (#8349279) Homepage
      ...in Stargate, that is a rather natural development. We've got this lots of wierdo alien tech, where the Stargate is just one, that we don't really understand, wouldn't there be a buzz like hell to figure out wtf all this really is? Whereas in Star Trek the "tech" is just part of the setting.

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

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

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

      Kjella

    • Clarke's Entertainment Law? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OECD ( 639690 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @12:03PM (#8349324) Journal

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

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

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

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

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

    • While the all-encompassing explanations may not suit your fancy, at least they have a moving plot..

      Unlike another remake of a classic show we all know of.. *cough*voyager*cough*

      I wont hold out for 'atlantis' to be around long, i expect it to be a bunch of mis-directed re-hash and get old pretty fast.

    • Re:I like SG-1... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Cska Sofia ( 705257 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @12:31PM (#8349453)
      Actually I like the technical aspects of the show. It's done in a way that grounds the storyline in reality (as far as is possible with a sci-fi show). I think it's human nature to try and reverse engineer a technology that isn't understood; the concept of having the gate hitched up to a giant bank of computers seems realistic to me.

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

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

      I liked the Egyptian aspect, and the links with other past human cultures, but I think it would have been hard to spin that out over so many episodes, so I'm glad the show has evolved.
      • The *only* thing that I don't buy is that the aliens mostly speak english. But I'm kind of glad they did it this way than have some universal translator technology, or have Daniel struggle to communicate with each race in every episode..

        SG-1 gets two thumbs up from me, I picked up all 5 available seasons on deepdiscountdvd.com for a good price.
      • (However, lately Carter seems to have taken on Trek-like problem-solving skills: "well, we could [insert improbable but ultimately 100% accurate solution 60 seconds after being presented with problem]." That bugs me a little.)

        Yeah, compare that with real-life situations of a similar nature. Take the recent re-enablement of the Spirit rover -- it too a couple of weeks for them to figure out that they probably needed to dump some files to make room in memory for regular operations. No ground-breaking new
    • If you take a season to be a year, after seven years of working with something, you would think they would, to some extent, work out how the technology works. Quite a few times it has been pointed out that Earths gate does not quite work as a normal gate does, due to the lack of a DHD, and it has also been said on the show that there are rudimentary understandings of how the gate works.

      Bear in mind that one of the missions of the SG teams is to collect alien tech so Earth can protect itself from other ra

    • When one is writing problems and solutions to problems in a sci-fi universe, I suppose it helps to have some sort of logically consistent theory behind the science of that universe so you can decide what would, in fact, actually work and what wouldn't. Regardless of how plausible it would be in reality, it avoids continuity errors and also (I find) spurs creativity when you put your mind towards what one can do with a simple set of rules.

      I mean, if you define your boundaries of what will and won't work wi

    • Re:I like SG-1... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cbelt3 ( 741637 )
      If my 75 year old father in law finds SG-1 his favourite show (and he's an old country kind of guy), then there is something there other than the /. fascination. Characters, storyline, a cast you 'care' about. Just like the original ST and STTNG, it's about the characters. Doesn't matter where, when, or what they are. Take 'em and stick them in a small town in the middle of nowhere, and have the situations visit them, and you get the same chemistry.

  • SciFi Channel ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SimplyCosmic ( 15296 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:27AM (#8349140) Homepage
    No thanks, I've pretty much ignored anything from the network that killed Farscape so that it could pay for Tremors: The Series.

  • Wait and see (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:28AM (#8349144)
    SG-1 is one of my favorite shows these days. That and the Simpsons are about the only shows I watch other than the News and Jay Leno. I've missed about 3 seasons while I was in college, but making it up when I catch a show in sydication now and then. One thing that made SG-1 cool was it was actually orginial. Sure, same old sci-fi themes, but the casting was a good mix and the writing has generally been fair as well. Richard Dean Anderson's character was a complete departure from the movie, but his character is pretty funny.

    • Not to mention... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @12:48PM (#8349521) Homepage
      Richard Dean Anderson's character was a complete departure from the movie, but his character is pretty funny.

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

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

      Kjella
      • Strangely I used to be a big McGyver fan when I was a kid, but since I'm not used to seeing him as Jack O'Neal in SG1 for so long now I actually had trouble seeing him as McGyver in some reruns on Spike TV (I think) they've played recently....

  • OK, Bruce, just swim right here... (Score:5, Informative)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:30AM (#8349160) Homepage Journal
    The thing I like about Stargate:SG1 is that it is relatively sensible about its science and proceedures - these people really act more like military people than certain other shows I could name.

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

    • Re:OK, Bruce, just swim right here... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Saturday February 21, 2004 @01:10PM (#8349616)
      I personally think that this show could pull up some suprises. SG1 is pretty much all about introducing us to the concept, and fighting the Goa`uld, which they are just about done doing. Atlantis could go in a different direction, finding out more information about the stargate network (There are 9 chevrons on the stargate, 7 are in normal use, 1 more was activated to meet the Asgard, whats the ninth for?), discovering stuff about the ancients (it was surmised in one episode that modern humanity could be descended from a pre ascended ancient species, i would like to see more on that).

      SG1 went military because thats where the film left off, Atlantis can be trememdously different.
  • I'm sorry but my roomate LOVES Stargate.... I cant stand the show. Take this as a rant but does anyone else think the series sucks? Bad acting, lame plot, etc...

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

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

    Please dont take

    • Re:The first series is BAD, now another one???? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Seek_1 ( 639070 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:43AM (#8349235)
      >>Dont get me wrong but I agree most SCIFI series are lacking now; ever since STNG ended they just fell.

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

      • Re:The first series is BAD, now another one???? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dan dan the dna man ( 461768 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @12:32PM (#8349456) Homepage Journal
        It's funny how people split on this divide. I love SG-1, I think its one of the best bits of Sci-Fi programming in years, I rate the series way more than I rate the film. I think Enterprise and Voyager are the best of the Star Trek canon. I couldn't stand Babylon 5 or DS9 (ST:NG got was especially ropey at points) and I think Farscape is simply the most ridiculous nonsense masquerading as Sci-Fi. My sister lives for Farscape and thinks its the best thing every to appear on TV. Horses for courses I say. One mans poison etc...

        • Re:The first series is BAD, now another one???? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fatboy ( 6851 ) * on Saturday February 21, 2004 @12:59PM (#8349575)
          I suspect the reason you like the shows you do, is because the ones you like are what I call 'episodic television'. Bab5, DS9 and Farscape require that you see many more episodes to fully understand what is going on. Enterprise, Voyager and SG-1, for the most part, can stand on their own as single episodes.

          Not that one is better than the other, I like all of those shows. My favorites are DS-9,SG-1,Farscape and Bab-5, in that order.
          • Hmm I hadn't considered that - I do like TV I can dip in and out of. I don't actually watch much TV (probably 2 hours a week) so following long lasting story arcs really doesn't appeal.

            I have to say though - I missed 24 when it came on TV, there's no way I would be able to say I will be in 24 consecutive weeks to watch something like that, but I'm now devouring it on DVD completely hooked. Maybe I'll score some Farscape DVD's off my sis and see if it improves my appreciation.
      • Wasn't that show cancelled because no one watched it? No one watched it because it . . . was no good maybe?

    • Re:The first series is BAD, now another one???? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by glpierce ( 731733 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @12:12PM (#8349360)
      Yes, the acting has been poor (it improved as time went on; watching Teal'c from one of the first seasons is unbearable). At least half the plots are lame, yes, but the other half (or quarter, third, etc) are relatively original (which is very rare in sci-fi). The one thing that is great in SG1 is character development. If you forget the first few episodes and movie (which don't make sense with the later ones, anyway), the characters are extremely complex yet perfectly consistant. I really can't name any show/movie that has had characters as well-crafted. I tip my hat to the writers for their work in that department (but not for plots, which have been on a downward slide for years).

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

  • Stargate SG-CHEAP? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Wag ( 102501 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:41AM (#8349223)
    Are they setting this show all on Earth so they don't have to pay for expensive sets?

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

    • Re:Stargate SG-CHEAP? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They are sharing sets with SG-1 down in Bridge Studio's here in Vancouver and so far by looking at the rigging setups looks like they aren't going the cheap route. One of their sets is one they have taken over from Blade 3 named the "Phoenix" set.
    • Read the press release. Much of the action will take place in a "far away galaxy" with a new threat, so expect lots of new sets.

  • Even worse... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nimloth ( 704789 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:44AM (#8349238)
    "I just hope this great franchise does not go the way of Star Trek, post Roddenberry."

    Or Rodenbury post Star Trek...

  • Meh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I really enjoyed Stargate the movie and the first few seasons of SG-1, but every season, the plot totally shifts, and things are horribly re-arranged into making something "new and fresh." Sure, O'Neil can't just keep killing Apothis and the Ghoul all the time. I kind of forsee the producers winding SG-1 down in time, if Atlantis really is going to take place.

    Personally, maybe it's just me, but I don't think Atlantis will do well for the Stargate series. Just like how Enterprise damaged Star Trek, I th

  • Nice Link (Score:3, Informative)

    by Spad ( 470073 ) <slashdot.spad@co@uk> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @11:54AM (#8349282) Homepage
    http://allstargate.television-series.com/atlantis/ (The second 'here' link) is just a redirect to http://www.paysforsurveys.com/

  • Misinformation? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xarius ( 691264 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @12:48PM (#8349520) Homepage
    Ummm, that is just wild speculation. As far as I know, the new series is set in another galaxy, on an offworld human base. I think the name has something to do with the new planet being the origins of the atlantis legend, several people have already been cast.

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

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

    Again this is AFAIK, I could be wrong

  • RDA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dickiedoodles ( 728410 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @12:50PM (#8349534)
    The main reason the more recent episodes of SG-1 have been less good (but still very enjoyable in my opinion) then the previous seasons is mainly because of Richard Dean Anderson (jack) being unwilling to spend as much time on the show, every season he says he wants to quit to spend more time with his daughter and every season they negotiate a nice package for him which means less work. IIRC he works about 3 days a week now which is why there are so many episodes that he barely appears in or in some cases doesn't appear in at all. In the next season of SG1 (season 8) rumour has it that he'll be in a more Hammond like position in charge of the SGC. Atlantis is obviously a way to not only expand the series but to get away from relying on RDA signing on every year.

    If anyone cares Gateworld [gateworld.net] is a fantastic site for information on all things stargate.

    • The main reason the more recent episodes of SG-1 have been less good (but still very enjoyable in my opinion) then the previous seasons is mainly because of Richard Dean Anderson (jack) being unwilling to spend as much time on the show, every season he says he wants to quit to spend more time with his daughter and every season they negotiate a nice package for him which means less work. IIRC he works about 3 days a week now which is why there are so many episodes that he barely appears in or in some cases

  • I'm a Roddenberry fan but .. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @12:55PM (#8349553)
    The quality of STNG was much higher than the original and improved dramatically after Roddenberry let Rick Berman lead the way. I think the combination of Roddenberry's somewhat politically correct "rules" and Berman's attempts to bend them was what made STNG so great.
  • To be totally honest, I think Atlantis won't have the same "vibe" (for lack of a better word) that SG-1 has had. If the plot is literally going to be based on an old base, and going to another side of the universe...jeeze, this is starting to sound like a hacked up Stargate clone of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine! Something, I don't look forward to watching, much like I don't care to watch Enterprise anymore.

  • Stargate and Atlantis (Score:5, Funny)

    by centauri ( 217890 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @01:03PM (#8349589) Homepage
    This circle is now complete.

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

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

    There are probably more I'm forgetting and of course the differences are significant, but it is very suspicious.
    • Disney's Atlantis(2001) seems to be a direct rip-off of the Gainax Nadia(1990).

      Look at the character sketches on this page:
      http://www.oldcrows.net/Atlantis/

      --- from the link
      Well, they draw from the same sources... ...so a few similarities are inevitable!

      Indeed, both productions are a hybrid of the "steampunk" adventure fiction written by Jules Verne (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) and the modern Atlantis mythology popularized by Edgar Cayce (On Atlantis). As such, similarities are inevitable - similar sou

  • Slashdot Jinx (Score:5, Funny)

    by N8F8 ( 4562 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @01:19PM (#8349651)
    You guys just killed Stargate. Every time a SciFi show is mentioned here a cancellation notice follows within three months. Damn.
  • I'm not talking about the gate, or the alien technology. I'm talking about whenever they do something outside that, its so lame, it's stupid.
    example:

    "This sound is too low of a frequency to hear. Let me turn it up."

    what? yes, changing the amplitude will be a sure way to be able to here something thats outside the range of human hearing. Bah.

    There is something like that in every show I have seen. Granted, I've only seen a handfull, but I'm not masochistic enough to watch anymore.

    Morons.

  • One of the directors is excited (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) <semi_famous@ya h o o .com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @01:30PM (#8349768) Homepage Journal
    I'm in contact with David Winning (IMDb filmography [imdb.com], official site [davidwinning.com]). He directed a lot of episodes of "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda" (photos: 1 [imdb.com], 2 [imdb.com]) and he's been hired on to direct at least part of the first season of "Stargate Atlantis". He's been getting a lot of recognition in the industry as one of the top directors for TV Sci-Fi in the past couple of years, so they're making some good choices for the series already. And the cool thing is that he seems really excited about the new series.

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

    - Greg

  • Uh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 ) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @01:59PM (#8350006) Homepage
    I love SG-1, and for the most part its better than the movie IMHO, but they have tried spinoffs already, and that makes me nervous. Anybody remember Stargate: Infinity [imdb.com]? It was a very short lived saturday morning cartoon. Just terrible.
    • I briefly caught a glimpse of "Stargate: Infinity" one day on "Sky One Mix" here in the UK (usually just a channel for repeats of what's on "Sky One", which is where the main "Stargate: SG1" series gets its UK premiere). It was pretty bad - the only similarity between it and the main live action series was the noise of the Zat gun as far as I could tell :-)

      It's amusing to note that the Gateworld site is very careful to avoid mentioning the Infinity spin-off when it's discussing the Atlantis spin-off - they
  • I've only recently been turned on to SG-1 (well a year and a half ago). I used to talk smack about it all the time, but I'm now totally hooked. The quality and diversity of the writing sometimes borders on pure genius yet they always manage to keep the light-hearted feel to the show (possibily due to the fact that Chris Judge and Richard Dean Anderson can't act and they both know it!). I am actually upset that I missed Heroes Part 1 last week because Heroes Part 2 last night was quite possibly my favorite S

  • Slashdot really missed the boat here... (Score:3, Funny)

    by X86Daddy ( 446356 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @07:31PM (#8352251) Journal
    This article was supposed to pe posted around 8PM Eastern last night, and give away the episode's ending in the article title.

    Way to go, editors.

  • OT: Sort of (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fireman sam ( 662213 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @10:22PM (#8353228) Homepage Journal
    Has anyone else noticed the similarities between the stargate series and the writings of Brian Lumley?

    For example:

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

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

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

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close