Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Third Stargate TV Series Named

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Mar 25, 2007 08:14 AM
from the lot-better-than-just-calling-it-stargate-fetus dept.
GateWorld has a story about the new Stargate series. "The working title of the third 'Stargate' television series is 'Stargate Universe', executive producer Robert C. Cooper told GateWorld. The show currently exists in the form of a one-page treatment of the story and characters. Cooper and executive producer Brad Wright will start writing the pilot after shooting on the two 'Stargate SG-1' movies finishes in June. Meanwhile, new episodes of 'SG-1' and 'Atlantis' start airing April 13 in the U.S., on The SCI FI Channel. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Moo (Score:1)

    by Chacham (981) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:21AM (#18478047)
    (http://tkatch.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @02:09PM)
    Summary:

    1) There are no details other than the name.
    2) They spelled "series" incorrectly.
    3) Everybody hates the name.
    • Re:Moo by The MAZZTer (Score:3) Sunday March 25 2007, @09:03AM
      • Re:Moo by BadERA (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @09:19AM
        • Re:Moo by The MAZZTer (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @09:23AM
        • Re:Moo by malsdavis (Score:3) Sunday March 25 2007, @09:50AM
          • Re:Moo by CrackedButter (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @11:42AM
            • Re:Moo by malsdavis (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @12:08PM
              • Re:Moo by SwedishPenguin (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @05:04PM
          • Re:Moo by Dance_Dance_Karnov (Score:3) Sunday March 25 2007, @01:04PM
            • Re:Moo by Impy the Impiuos Imp (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @05:57PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Moo by NDPTAL85 (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @09:53AM
        • Re:Moo by mdwh2 (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @11:15AM
    • They even believe they "own" the concept... by gd23ka (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @02:35PM
    • Re:Moo by Arcady13 (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @04:55PM
    • Re:Moo by renegadesx (Score:1) Monday March 26 2007, @12:42AM
  • Moo (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chacham (981) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:31AM (#18478101)
    (http://tkatch.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @02:09PM)
    And, in this *completely new* series, SG-1 finds that they can dial yet another number and travel the multi-verse. To power it, they need to turn the Earth into a giant powersource, but Macgyver figures out how to do it with duct tape and chewing gum.

    On arrival they find an empty room where the 42 original member of the Multiversal Council met to populate the universe, but they won't talk to them because they don't know enough yet. They get ticked off and start blowing things up, and are sent back to their home universe which is now set to be destroyed.

    The series focuses on how the erstwhile enemies must get together and fight the coomon enemy, all before Macgyver dies of old age.
    • Re:Moo by AndroidCat (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @09:06AM
    • Re:Moo by naoursla (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @10:25PM
      • Re:Moo by Nurgled (Score:2) Monday March 26 2007, @07:18AM
        • Re:Moo by naoursla (Score:2) Monday March 26 2007, @03:44PM
        • Re:Moo by NuShrike (Score:2) Tuesday March 27 2007, @02:05PM
    • Re:Moo by spx (Score:1) Monday March 26 2007, @08:52AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by ip_freely_2000 (577249) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:45AM (#18478197)
    ...it seems like SG-SG1 has been on forever. Then there's that Atlantis show that's been on a while.

    For such a successful series SG seems to have very little of the cultural impact or generate the extreme opinion that ST had. It's like SG has always been 'okay', but ST was 'great' but then simply wore out it's welcome.
  • 'Our' military? (Score:3, Informative)

    by teh kurisu (701097) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:50AM (#18478225)
    (http://quadrocket.co.uk/)

    "One of the things that we love about Stargate is that is us -- it's our military, it's our scientists, it's our people -- and we're going out into the galaxy and the universe to discover all the wonders that are out there, and dealing with our own limitations versus things that are far more advanced than us." - Robert C. Cooper

    I take it Cooper's talking in relative terms, given that he's Canadian (along with most of the cast and crew) and the US Air Force, well, isn't.

  • Learn from Star Trek (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ambitwistor (1041236) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:58AM (#18478273)
    After the success of ST:TNG, the whole franchise got run into the ground. Arguably the later Star Trek series weren't as good, but I think they just oversaturated the market with spinoff after spinoff. Too much of a good thing and people will just get tired of it, and Stargate on television has been going on in one form or another for 10 years already. Maybe it's better to focus on just one series at a time, and end each series gracefully before it jumps the shark.
  • Long path from treatment to series. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dock (89815) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:59AM (#18478287)
    (http://www.mediapundit.net/)
    A treatment is akin to an inventor writing down an idea on a cocktail napkin. Before they even get to the pilot script, it'll have to be expanded by another nine pages or so, and if it exists as part a development deal rather than something done on spec, it'll most likely go back and forth between the exec and the studio a half dozen times before just that ten page treatment is given the OK.

    The pilot script will probably go through at least that amount of haggling, and would need to be followed up with or maybe even proceeded by an entire series treatment which will probably take weeks if not months to do, before the studio would even consider shooting the pilot.

    Not trying to rain on the parade or anything, I just want to put into perspective what this means, which isn't a whole lot right now. This is step one out of tens of dozens. Long way to go here.
  • "Third"? (Score:4, Informative)

    by HTH NE1 (675604) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:26AM (#18478449)

    The working title of the third 'Stargate' television series is 'Stargate Universe'
    Actually, that would be the fourth series:
    1. Stargate SG-1 (1997) [imdb.com]
    2. Stargate Infinity (2002) [imdb.com]
    3. Stargate Atlantis (2004) [imdb.com]
    4. Stargate Universe
    They always forget/suppress the animated series, just like Star Trek (1973) [imdb.com].
  • by urikkiru (801560) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:56AM (#18478669)
    (Last Journal: Sunday August 29 2004, @05:00AM)
    After watching 8 seasons of the main series, I thought they pretty much wrapped things up quite nicely. It *felt* like an ending I could accept, and even like quite a bit. When I heard there was going to be a 9th season, and the storyline that it would entail, I was quite frankly a bit disgusted. I thought the 'bad ancients' idea was silly, and just meant to extract more cash from a series that was going to 'jump the shark' so to speak.

    Add to that fact that Richard Dean Anderson was on his way out of the show, and to be honest, it was over at that point. His character added something to the whole thing, call it maybe the reality check. O'Neil just kind of refused to take things seriously 100% of the time, and added a great amount of quips, and humor.

    Just let it die. It's over.
  • Gah (Score:2)

    Why do they always insist on beating shows into the ground rather than coming up with something new? Stargate's been old and tired for years...since O'Neil left. Stargate:Atlantis has never been anything more than mediocre. It's like Star Trek all over, the show gets lamer and lamer, but they just keep propping up the corpse for "the fans".

    It wouldn't bother me so much if it use cash and airtime that could be used for something more original.
    • Re:Gah by mpe (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @10:50AM
    • Re:Gah by westlake (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @01:17PM
      • Re:Gah by ucblockhead (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @05:18PM
      • Re:Gah by ynohoo (Score:2) Monday March 26 2007, @05:47AM
    • Re:Gah by Pyrion (Score:2) Monday March 26 2007, @03:18AM
    • Re:Gah by pandrijeczko (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @01:41PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • sg-1 (Score:1)

    by kiwi38 (1020867) on Sunday March 25 2007, @10:55AM (#18479085)
    I thought SG-1 was cancelled?
    • Re:sg-1 by stonecypher (Score:2) Monday March 26 2007, @08:25PM
  • SG-1's already available online (Score:5, Informative)

    by Asmor (775910) on Sunday March 25 2007, @11:09AM (#18479225)
    (http://www.asmor.com/)
    SkyOne aired the second part of season 10 of Stargate SG-1 several months before Sci-Fi did. In fact, they showed the last episode a few weeks ago. They're all available online.

    Not that I'm advocating piracy (hell, I own the first 9 seasons on DVD and will get the 10th whenever it comes out), but it's Sci-Fi's fault for dragging their ass and waiting so long to show it. In a globalized world, you don't get to screw people over just so you can get an extra half of a rating point.

    I leave it as an exercise for the reader to discover where to get them.
  • Just hope... (Score:2)

    by shawnce (146129) on Sunday March 25 2007, @11:26AM (#18479377)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    I just hope SciFi network finds a way to work wrestling into the new series... the world needs more of it... *rolls eyes*
  • Wrong series (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kabdib (81955) on Sunday March 25 2007, @11:50AM (#18479591)
    (http://www.dadhacker.com/)
    Enough wasting money already. Bring back Firefly.

    (I loved the first few years of SG1, but then it got pretty random and bad, reminding me more and more of the "Forehead of the Week" clubhouse show: STtNG).
  • by setrops (101212) on Sunday March 25 2007, @12:01PM (#18479675)
    I thought the show was going good. New threat. I like Ben Browder and Claudia Black from Farscape. The show still has some good humour. And most of all, it has a lot of Baal's.
  • Thanks SciFi (Score:2)

    by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Sunday March 25 2007, @12:27PM (#18479857)
    Meanwhile, new episodes of 'SG-1' and 'Atlantis' start airing April 13 in the U.S., on The SCI FI Channel.

    I understand how the rest of the world feels with everything being broadcast late. SG-1 has been broadcast in UK for some time (Up to episode 20 currently) and Atlantis has been broadcast in Australia.

    I can say I won't be catching these on SciFi since I have them all from BitTorrent.

    Networks: Start broadcasting TV shows at the same time... because otherwise we're going to get them anyway.
  • The suits are getting greedy (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2007, @01:34PM (#18480267)
    Or, I should say, they've gotten even more greedy.

    (Musings below will be most probably badly articulated, but I hope I can get the point across. But then, I have the excuse that english is not my native langage -- heh)

    Typical 'murkan' TV executive excessive greed and stupidity. Press the lemon as much as you can, bleed the damn thing until dry... and even then, bleed it some more to make more $$$.

    There is such a thing as "too much of a good thing" (badly said): haven't "they" learned about the fact that something is made more precious if it is not too abundant? As long as a ressource is scarce it is more desirable? Don't these monkeys know about the concept of an _overdose_?

    Not only that, but by running two series in parallel, they are stretching the writing staff a bit thin, because it has to come up with even more original and possibly not-overlapping ideas all the time. If Atlantis becomes the only SG series running, the writing should improve, because it would not have to share "originality" and the "unexpected" with SG1 -- no?

    It's not as if the franchise will not be unsuccessful (sp?) if there is only Atlantis -- come on, SG1 lasted 10 years, which is a pretty respectable run in TV Land, AFAIK.

    Further more, the idiocy of the suits meddling with the series has already resulted in the...

    SPOILERS!!!!

    (linefeed)
    (linefeed) ...death of a major character because they "wanted to shake things up" (WTF?). I fear that the Stargate franchise will fall prey to the "tv series by recipe" fate that befell the Trek franchise (hey, let's have a show babe with big boobs and make her wear a different uniform than everybody else!).

    I hear from work colleagues that BS:G and Lost have become victim of very apparent executive meddling and are sucking big time this year (warning: GIGO principle applies here, I can only take their word for it). All of them, ~former big fans of these series are no longer watching them religiously. I'm assuming that they are not the only ones and that there has been a noticable drop in ratings.

    Let's hope that someone with enough corporate power notices this and learns the appropriate lessons. Let's hope that that someone will then kill this 3rd SG series and let SG:A grow and become what it can/could be.

    Since, what, the early '70s I've seen too many shows degrade because of idiotic suits dictating what a show should look like, applying tired and broken recipes to said shows when they didn't need "fixing". (It happened also in the '60s: think "Lost in space" that started wih a "serious" pilot and ended up with campy sillyness.) That or simply running a show past its prime and not ending it at the right time (think "Happy Days"). You do need to know when to stop, otherwhise you'll end up... "jumping the shark".

    Sorry for the rant, but I've grown to like the SG franchise (those daily re-runs are good for something, after all...) and would like to see it stay healthy.

  • by Zarn (11601) on Sunday March 25 2007, @03:40PM (#18481069)
    (http://hawking.mud.nu/zarn/)
    I stopped watching after season 8. What they should've done a long time ago is have the show reveal the Stargate program and deal with society afterwards. Bring on the outrage, the political manoeuvring, etc. Just don't use any groups of young boyscouts who inexplicably develop superhuman strength.

  • by SwedishPenguin (1035756) on Sunday March 25 2007, @05:14PM (#18481723)
    According to http://www.gateworld.net/news/2007/03/iuniversei_d eals_with_ninth_chev.shtml [gateworld.net] the show will deal with the ninth chevron. (for the uninitiated, 7 chevrons are used for travel within the galaxy, 8 chevrons are required to go outside the galaxy, I can only assume that 9 chevrons would be outside our universe or galaxies farther away within our universe than what 8 chevrons would be able to handle. (or perhaps time travel, the ancients, or at least one ancient, have already experimented with that)
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Huh? (Score:1)

    by RoboRay (735839) on Sunday March 25 2007, @05:29PM (#18481803)
    Stargate Universe? Sounds like a better name for a Stargate MMORPG than a TV show.
    • Re:Huh? by d0rp (Score:1) Monday March 26 2007, @12:47PM
  • Why is this news? (Score:2)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Sunday March 25 2007, @06:07PM (#18482075)
    Since the series hasn't started shooting yet, doesn't even have its first script or cast of characters yet, will certainly change its name before being broadcast, and exists as a single sheet of paper only, why is this news?
  • by Fission86 (1070784) on Sunday March 25 2007, @10:07PM (#18483637)
    to plug the idea for Stargate SG-32, a bungling SG team made up of a lovable bunch of misfits. Their story begins about season 3 or so when SG-32 gets a new commander, hilarity and bonding ensues.

    From a plausibility angle this is a great idea as we get to see a different take on previous situations (i.e. when the plot was still slightly amusing) as well as letting the SG writers to break away from the SG-1 team (which sucked without Richard Dean Anderson).
  • by starbuckr0x (1073378) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:21AM (#18486955)
    Who cares. All I know is it's going to be a painful wait for the 2008 BSG season premiere! :(
  • Big Deal... (Score:1)

    by Stanislav_J (947290) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:25AM (#18487009)
    I'm still waiting for "Stargate: Special Victims Unit..."
  • by bandmassa (951387) on Thursday March 29 2007, @07:14PM (#18537519)
    (http://www.filthynoises.com/)
    ...can anybody say CSI?
  • Re:may (Score:2, Funny)

    by SCPRedMage (838040) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:20AM (#18478043)
    No you may not.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Indeed (Score:5, Funny)

    by Asztal_ (914605) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:21AM (#18478045)
    (http://asztal.net/)
    Hallowed are our new intergalactic overlords.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by linguizic (806996) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:39AM (#18478157)
    (http://improbableuniverse.blogspot.com/)
    I agree completely. One of the things that made the show so good was that it was almost like watching an RPG, the characters would collect different bits of technology and information helping to move the overall plot of the series. Part of the reason for watching the show was to find out what kind of new technology or factoid about the SG-1 universe would get revealed, or who would be the next system lord to get blown up or blasted by robot Teal'c. Since season 8, there haven't been any new major revelations, no new technology (they seem to be bringing techs from older episodes to fill in that place), no system lords to kill (the writers don't want to kill off Baal b/c they like to use him as the occasional Goa'uld bad guy when they don't want to bother advancing the Ori plot). Speaking of the Ori, they aren't a new interesting bad guy like the replicators, just a slightly modified form of the Goa'uld. For example: the Goa'ulds are parasites who pretend to be gods, the Ori are ascendant beings that pretend to be gods through memetic parasitism. Cameron Mitchel sucks, they should have just added Vala to the team and not worried about replacing O'Neall. They developed O'Neall's character so well, and made all of the personalities of SG-1 fit together so well that just sticking Ben Browder (who is an awful actor) in there messes up the dynamics. And with the exception of one episode in the last two seasons, the show has taken itself way to seriously.

    That being said, I'm looking forward to the movies.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Why? by AndroidCat (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @08:50AM
      • Re:Why? by lc_overlord (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @10:57AM
    • Re:Why? by westyx (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @09:21AM
      • Re:Why? by Pyrion (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @09:37AM
        • Re:Why? by Belial6 (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @10:09AM
          • Re:Why? by westyx (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @10:26AM
            • Re:Why? by yoder (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @03:29PM
          • Re:Why? by WilliamSChips (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @11:19AM
          • Re:Why? by dgatwood (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @11:20AM
            • Re:Why? by tsalaroth (Score:1) Monday March 26 2007, @06:53AM
              • Re:Why? by dgatwood (Score:2) Monday March 26 2007, @12:30PM
          • Re:Why? by Pyrion (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @05:48PM
          • Re:Why? by Jarnin (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @10:42PM
            • Re:Why? by Eli Gottlieb (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @11:20PM
            • Re:Why? by Kaki Nix Sain (Score:1) Monday March 26 2007, @12:25AM
  • Re:Why? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:44AM (#18478187)
    Maybe they should call the new series Stargate: Enterprise?
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @11:51AM
  • by Skythe (921438) on Sunday March 25 2007, @08:58AM (#18478269)
    The 9th Chevron [gateworld.net] is set to play a big role in the show. Im guessing they get stuck in some random universe, unable to travel home, ala Atlantis season 1. Doesn't really look like anything new; so im betting on it being axed within 2-3 seasons.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:24AM (#18478425)

    shooting on the two 'Stargate SG-1' movies finishes in June

    Given the constraints of the budget, I thought the SciFi channel did a darned good job with the movie that ended the Farscape series - they took the concept about as far as it could be taken [I mean, seriously, it's hard to top an out-of-control wormhole that threatens to swallow up the entirety of space-time as we know it], and tied up most of the loose ends [boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy regains girl plus newborn baby].

    I hope they take these Stargate movies at least as seriously - the SG-1 franchise deserves to go out with a bang.

    I'd like to see all the species in our galaxy [The Asgard, the Nox [gateworld.net], the Oannes [gateworld.net], Ba'al & his gang, etc etc etc], teaming up a la Justice League of America, or Avengers/Defenders, and going head to head with the Origin armies, in a four-hour epic maelstrom of a battle, with blood and guts and iron and ash and fire and brimstone, and finally wiping those rat bastard Ori off the map forever.

    And speaking of going out with a bang, after they've dealt with the Ori once and for all, the male leads could then turn to fighting over who gets to bang Inara Serra [imdb.com].

    And it would be really neat if they could convince Kurt Russell & James Spader to come back and play some roles - maybe president & vice president of the USA?

    Or perhaps they could be in the cast of "Wormhole X-Treme!".

    [And if you wanna get really cynical, it could be revealed that the entire Stargate franchise was merely the fantasy of a writer for "Wormhole X-Treme!" - kinda like how Bobby Ewing just reappeared in the shower one morning [wikipedia.org].]

    [ Parent ]
    • Re:SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @09:46AM
    • Re:SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie by Viper Daimao (Score:3) Sunday March 25 2007, @09:48AM
    • Re:SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheWanderingHermit (513872) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:52AM (#18478635)
      I thought the SciFi channel did a darned good job with the movie that ended the Farscape series

      SciFi had nothing to do with shooting the Farscape movie. I wish people would stop giving this channel credit for things like this. The show was canceled with no indication that anything would follow. Then the producers decided they wanted to tie it up and started shooting the mini-series. When they started shooting, they had no idea who would buy it or where it would be shown. SciFi picked it up.

      SciFi has hardly any responsibility for the quality, or more often the lack of quality, in their shows. They are produced by other corporations and the shows are sold to SciFi. For instance, remember Stargate: SG1 was on Showtime for the first 5 years of the show. There's even one line in the last episode of the first season that referenced Showtime. When they see the transmitter and Teal'c tells them what it is, O'Neil said, "Does it get Showtime?" Later, in reruns on SciFi, the line was redubbed to remove a reference to Showtime. While SciFi claims the show as an original, it was created elsewhere.

      Galactica is a slightly different story, since it involves the parent company of SciFi. Still, it is NOT SciFi that produces these shows.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Geno Z Heinlein (659438) on Sunday March 25 2007, @12:30PM (#18479869)
        SciFi had nothing to do with shooting the Farscape movie. I wish people would stop giving this channel credit for things like this. The show was canceled with no indication that anything would follow.

        And Farscape was cancelled after SFC had already renewed it for two seasons, both 4 and 5. SFC pulled the rug from under Farscape after the cliffhanger ending of season 4 was completed. The same thing happened to Forever Knight on USA: USA funded one-third of FK's third and final season, and then pulled the funding at the last minute, leading to the bottle episodes at the end of that show.

        As near as I can figure, the common element is someone named Bonnie Hammer, who ran the channels in question at the right times and seems not to like genre shows, based on the Scare Tactics and John Edwards garbage that was the staple of SFC's line-up the last time I subscribed to it.

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie by bigbigbison (Score:2) Sunday March 25 2007, @01:15PM
      • Re:SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie by Guspaz (Score:2) Monday March 26 2007, @05:01PM
    • None of them have the money or class... by John Guilt (Score:1) Sunday March 25 2007, @11:40AM
    • Re:SG-1 movie -vs- Farscape movie by Tawg (Score:1) Monday March 26 2007, @05:31AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Oh, please (Score:1, Troll)

    by Travoltus (110240) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:31AM (#18478485)
    (Last Journal: Saturday April 01 2006, @09:51PM)
    Stargate stands head and shoulders above the rest, except Babylon 5. It's just that familiarity breeds contempt.

    Yet when I turn off Stargate SG-1 or Atlantis and go watch any other show, including that one with the (now dead) alcoholic female space fighter pilot and the Farmers insurance agent turned starship captain, I keep seeing over and over again why I like Stargate.
    [ Parent ]
  • Let it Go (Score:1)

    by MasterPoof (876056) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:37AM (#18478513)
    Come on folks, Atlantis should have been the last series (unless they've got some VERY compelling plots here). It's time to say goodbye (well, when Atlantis finishes its run anyway).
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:uhm, hasnt SG1 finished already?! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gryle (933382) on Sunday March 25 2007, @09:42AM (#18478555)
    The series has already finished in Canada and the UK. For some incredibly stupid reason the US broadcaster, Sci-Fi, decided to take a 6 month break half-way into the season and the last 10 episodes won't be aired until sometime in April.
    [ Parent ]
  • by dmnic (452122) on Sunday March 25 2007, @10:50AM (#18479043)
    the new SG-1 episodes airing this spring are the last half of season 10.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Please, Stop. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mpe (36238) on Sunday March 25 2007, @11:07AM (#18479201)
    Let it go. You've milked this cow long enough. Let Stargate die in peace. Atlantis too. And BSG too [if it doesn't stop sucking ass with filler episodes].

    SG-1 has run for 10 years. This is a long time for any series, especially one where you can't easily change the location and/or cast.
    Maybe they'd do better to try something new instead of more Stargate. e.g. give Joss Whedon a call and then give his ideas full backing.
    [ Parent ]
  • by John Guilt (464909) on Sunday March 25 2007, @11:07AM (#18479203)
    R. Moore, in an interview published in "Salon" on-line, mentioned an entire sub-plot that was excised at the last moment from this season; this might be one reason it wasn't that good....
    [ Parent ]
  • by mpe (36238) on Sunday March 25 2007, @11:17AM (#18479307)
    The United States, the Best [sic], Greatest [sic], most Awesome [sic] country in the world is, as always, way behind everyone else and /., being based in the US,

    IIRC the US is way ahead of the world in quite a few ways. Just that things like "the land of the free" having the worlds biggest prison population isn't much to be proud of.

    typically fails to acknowledge the simple fact that everyone in the civilised world has already seen the series finale of SG-1 and the season 3 finale of Atlantis.

    When it comes to TV series the US often gets the first few episodes first, but often the last few episodes get shown in the UK or Canada before the US. Where the US tends to really get stiffed is on DVD releases. With it possibly being quicker to row across the Atlantic and back than wait for the US DVD release. (With walking to and from Canada, from Florida, being a possible alternative in some cases.)
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Please, Stop. (Score:2)

    by 26199 (577806) * on Sunday March 25 2007, @11:48AM (#18479581)
    (http://davidmorgan.org/)

    Bring back Red Dwarf or Babylon 5 instead, those haven't been milked enough :)

    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Stargate? (Score:2)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Sunday March 25 2007, @04:27PM (#18481405)
    "Who, honestly, really gives a fuck? C'mon kids, get off your arse, get ourdoors and get some fresh air! Cut down on your pork life mate, get some exercise! ;p"

    Slashdot would have 334 fewer comments in its database if you had taken your own advice. :P
    [ Parent ]
  • Man that was funny. When Mel Gibson said it. Twenty years ago.
    [ Parent ]
  • 9 replies beneath your current threshold.