Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

'Stargate: SG-1' Cancelled 605

Ant writes "The Sci-Fi channel has announced that it will not be renewing its (very popular) original series Stargate SG-1 for another season.The spinoff series Stargate: Atlantis will get the nod, though, airing for a fourth year. SG-1 aired its 200th episode on August 18th, and the SF series is the longest-running SF show on American television." Gateworld has further details: "New episodes of both Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis continue Fridays this summer starting at 9 p.m. Eastern/Pacific, leading up to the mid-season finale on September 22. The second half of the season will begin in March, leading to SG-1's final bow on SCI FI in June."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Stargate: SG-1' Cancelled

Comments Filter:
  • by Nick Fury ( 624480 ) <> on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:26AM (#15954815)
    It's just like that show with the guy who went through a space warp portal thing and landed on that living space ship thing with those little yellow robots and those damn crackers... what was the name of that show again? :)
  • So Long and Thanks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Marillion ( 33728 ) <> on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:26AM (#15954817)
    Well, if you're going to go out, go out on top.

    By the way, if anyone from the staff, crew or cast reads this: Thanks for ten wonderful years.

    • by Travoltus ( 110240 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:44AM (#15954929) Journal
      Sci Fi Channel is doing a 7th Heaven and they, as far as I can see, don't have a good show to replace it with.

      All they have left to hold dedicated viewers is Battlestar Galactica.

      What else is there to watch on that network now?
      • by MustardMan ( 52102 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:50AM (#15954976)
        What else is there to watch on that network now?

        Why, ECW, of course!

        (cue flames)
        • by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @11:00AM (#15955502)
          The first time I saw ECW on SciFi, I thought WTF is THIS shit doing on here? Actually, I STILL wonder. The only reason I can think of, is that it's actually an infomercial where they paid SF to show it.
          • by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @12:51PM (#15956434) Homepage
            And when the ECW fans heard it was coming back but on SciFi they thgouth WTF is this doing on this shitty channel? And fans STILL wonder.
            As it turns out WWE, who owns ECW has a deal to show them main show Raw on the USA netowork which NBC now owns. So WWE wanted to bring back ECW. NBC wanted to show it but they didn't want to put it on USA or Bravo, so SciFi was all that was left.
            That's the logic of corporations for you.
            Apparently, its debut was the highest ratings SciFi ever had.
            I'm a wrestling fan and a scifi fan, and it still doesn't make any sense. The random shit SciFi is asking them to put in like zombies and vampires to try to make some sort of sense aren't appealing to SciFi fans and are just irritating to wrestling fans.
    • by FrYGuY101 ( 770432 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @10:07AM (#15955106) Journal
      Personally, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I don't like where the show's been heading. The Ori aren't good villains. I don't like the concept, and the execution has been even worse. They're fighting gods, for all intents and purposes. It's the same problem as Superman: you're constantly getting stronger because instead of writing within the same levels of powers, writers take the easy out and make a challenge that is overcome by making the protagonist(s) stronger, instead of writing for the same strengths, but dealing with choices they make and the consequences they face. On the other hand, the characters are well fleshed out, well written, and the show is still good in SPITE of these crappy villains. The relationships are among the best written on TV right now, in my mind only second to Battlestar Galactica, maybe tying with House. I only hope that they can end the series as well as it would have ended had it not been renewed after Season 7 like they thought.
      • by toad3k ( 882007 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @11:25AM (#15955691)
        You nailed it. This is my biggest problem with science fiction today. They give too much power to the good guys, and then they have to scale up the bad guys to compensate. Eventually the battle reaches a point where you can't even relate to it anymore. The matrix committed this error along with nearly every anime I've ever seen.

        My other problem is that eventually you end up at a point where some genius with access to the script decides to, for example, destroy a sun in an easily repeatable way, and then for the rest of the series, blowing up a sun is a solution for every problem but has to be ignored. It is short sighted and every writer should read their script and look for these obvious and completely avoidable future plot holes.
  • nudity (Score:3, Funny)

    by brap999 ( 778802 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:26AM (#15954818) Homepage
    The article mentioned full frontal nudity. Does this mean that some where out on the interweb is a full frontal nude shot of Samantha Carter? :)
  • by afidel ( 530433 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:27AM (#15954823)
    I wonder if the original cast members wanted too much money, or if they simply got tired of doing the show and told the network they wouldn't do it any more. Those are the only two reasons I can think for cancelling one of your most profitable shows.
  • I'm a long time SG-1 fan, but I've had my fingres crossed that they'd end the show for the past few seasons now, ever since Don Davis (General Hammond) left and they started up atlantis. Recent episodes haven't been up to par, and have weakened the canon of the series overall. We all love Firefly, as it was short and sweet. Six or seven seasons of SG-1 were gold, but it is time to hang up the hat.
  • by Cpt_Kirks ( 37296 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:28AM (#15954830)
    Poor Ben Browder. Screwed by Sci-Fi again!

    At least MGM is planning on continuing the series, somewhere else.

    I guess Sci-Fi needs more space for shitty B monster movies, fantasty crap and "wrasslin'"...

    • by imsabbel ( 611519 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:34AM (#15954869)
      Sorry, but stargate should have been canceled YEARS ago, while there was still something left besides stupid rehashes and lack of ideas.
      • by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @11:33AM (#15955764) Journal
        Then you never understood what stargate was. It was always stupid rehashes, but done with enough intelligence and wit that it made fun of the stupid rehashes. You can't run a sci-fi series for 200 episodes without doing stupid rehashes, so you'd better not take yourself too seriously and paint yourself into a corner you can't get out of. One of my favorite lines was when Sam says, "You know what their weakness turned out to be? Water. I mean, if that's true, why go to all the trouble to invade a planet that's two-thirds water?" C'mon, we were all thinking it...

        At any rate, they've faired far better than the Simpsons, which didn't even have the good sense to step aside when it spawned a truely great comedy.
    • by Cheerio Boy ( 82178 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:37AM (#15954889) Homepage Journal
      I guess Sci-Fi needs more space for shitty B monster movies, fantasty crap and "wrasslin'"...

      Explain that one to me please? They cancel things like Farscape and SG-1 but put the ECW on there??

      We should probably start calling it the B-Channel. B for Bad.

      Oh well. If they keep canceling shows I'll be able to lower my DirecTV bill by going to the basic package that doesn't have them on it. If one of their shows turns out to be good enough to escape their massive suckage it'll show up on some other channel or DVDs.
      • by sammy baby ( 14909 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:42AM (#15954919) Journal
        Ugh. ECW. I gotta believe they put that on there because it was cheap.

        But otherwise, I dunno - SG-1 had a ten year run. I was annoyed when they canceled Farscape, and god only knows that other shows haven't gotten a fair shake there (G vs E, anyone?), but I think now's a good time for SG-1 to take its curtain call.

        And remember, for every ECW, or Who Wants to be a Superhero (which I'm told is actually not bad), there's a Eureka.

        Well, okay. For every five such shows, there's a Eureka.

        • by Cheerio Boy ( 82178 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:53AM (#15954992) Homepage Journal
          Ugh. ECW. I gotta believe they put that on there because it was cheap.

          Selling your soul because it's cheap is no excuse. If they want to have good happy viewers they need to put out what they want to see. I can't honestly believe anybody asked for ECW.

          But otherwise, I dunno - SG-1 had a ten year run. I was annoyed when they canceled Farscape, and god only knows that other shows haven't gotten a fair shake there (G vs E, anyone?), but I think now's a good time for SG-1 to take its curtain call.

          I can see the curtain call because of the actors but not much else. The fanbase is still quite strong and vocal and watch this stuff almost religiously. Despite jokes..."Stargate is Farscape with 50% less muppets!" ;-)

          And remember, for every ECW, or Who Wants to be a Superhero (which I'm told is actually not bad), there's a Eureka.

          While I admire Stan Lee for sticking around and being active WWTBAS is some of the worst crap I've ever seen. If we wanted a "reality" show we'd watch Reality TV NOT SciFi!

          As for Eureka? I love it but not to the extent that I'd pay extra $$$ per month to see it.
        • by MustardMan ( 52102 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:54AM (#15955006)
          ECW is the highest-rated show on Sci-fi. It's also the highest rated show on ad-supported cable that airs on tuesday primetime. ECW is making money for sci-fi. Hopefully, they will use that money to bankroll more good science fiction shows.
          • by Cheerio Boy ( 82178 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @10:11AM (#15955137) Homepage Journal
            ECW is the highest-rated show on Sci-fi. It's also the highest rated show on ad-supported cable that airs on tuesday primetime. ECW is making money for sci-fi. Hopefully, they will use that money to bankroll more good science fiction shows.

            Then in my opinion:

            1) They've attracted the wrong audience.

            2) They've decided that they can't attract the right audience - or they don't know how.

            3) They have become even more suit infested and this is the beginning of the vampyric draining of the SciFi network.

            If it's the first then they need to do more research. They should be researching Science Fiction/Fantasy conventions and Renaissance Faires not just Nielsen ratings. They may be doing that - I don't know. But if this first point is true then they are not doing it right.

            The second point goes right along with the first. From what I've seen of the programming on SciFi I suspect there are only a few at that channel that truly understand what Science Fiction/Fantasy is all about. (And before you flame me for including Fantasy at least that's within the realm of possibility for this channel unlike ECW or WWTBAS.)

            My greatest fear though is it's the last one. SciFi Channel has made enough money to attract the hungry vampires from other corporate cultures and is going to go down the drain very shortly leaving only a husk of its former self.

            Lastly - you mentioned budget and that ECW was making money for them that they could use to fund other good SciFi shows. Look back at some of the truly popular SciFi stuff from the past. Look at what kinds of budgets they had. I'm sure you can think of at least a half-dozen good shows that had little or no budget but were fantastic! That tells me that good SciFi doesn't need a lot of money but rather someone to care about the genre and to have good writers and good actors. Often some of the best of those don't cost a lot. If SciFi Channel can afford ECW it can afford to make new series.
  • Well it figures (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:28AM (#15954831) Journal
    They add more the show, bring in three new exceptional talents (Ben, Beau and Claudia), and I finally get my wife to enjoy SciFi so it is something we can watch together, and they cancel the show.

    I had thought the last year.5 had introduced some new blood and ideas into the show, after I quit watching it in Season 7. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks the show had taken a turn for the better, fresher, while still being true to the original concept.
    • by Tx ( 96709 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:47AM (#15954953) Journal
      I have to agree, I had also quit watching it around season 6, and started up again in season 9, which I thought had a different tone to earlier stuff, but was possibly the most entertaining season yet. Haven't seen season 10 yet. It hasn't broadcast in the UK yet, and I've resisted downloading it ... so far ;), but I hear good things.
  • Holy Hell (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RawGutts ( 879317 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:29AM (#15954838)
    Holy Crap, now what am I going to do? Go outside and enjoy the sunshine?
  • It was time. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Angostura ( 703910 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:29AM (#15954842)
    Great series, but clearly showing its age and suffering from 'we need to keep inventing more überenemies' syndrome. I shall look forward to seeing how they bow out. Personally, I think it is about time that they found an enemy capable of destroying the earth which actually does it. Might not please some fans, but would make great television.
  • GAH! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The MAZZTer ( 911996 ) <<megazzt> <at> <>> on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:31AM (#15954848) Homepage

    Ah well. I suppose this is a blessing in disguise though as it means:

    1) We'll get to see the Ori beaten (hopefully, according to the last few episodes aren't set in stone yet).

    2) At the end of Episode 200 Martin Lloyd announces to the 10-season cast of Wormhole X-treme that "the movie's back on!". I like to think this extends back to that Stargate SG-1 movie [], but I guess we'll have to wait and see. Now that the series is over there's more hope for it, at least according to gateworld...

    I wonder how long the SG-1 writers/producers etc knew the 10th season would be the last. Episode 200 makes a BIT more sense if you realize "hey, they knew they would never have another chance to pull stuff like this again".

    • by Ignignot ( 782335 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:53AM (#15954991) Journal
      Yeah I wondered about that as well. Where can I look to keep up to date with the possibility of an SG1 movie?
  • by jackb_guppy ( 204733 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:31AM (#15954852)
    SG-1 was to be killed just after Atlanis
    SG-1 was to be killed after Jack left
    Now Again.

    But true they now have Farscape people, so the death should be quick!
    • by TCQuad ( 537187 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @11:14AM (#15955601)
      In SciFi headquarters, not too long ago...

      Exec 1: "Now that we have Atlantis, we can cancel SG1!"
      Exec 2: "Oh, I couldn't bear to do that! I don't want to make Richard Dean Anderson cry again."
      Exec 1: "Well, we could wait until he leaves and then cancel SG1."
      Exec 2: "No, then he'd get all smug about how SG1 was really 'his' show."
      Exec 1: "How about replacing him and then canceling the show after a season or two?"
      Exec 2: "Brilliant! But where could we possibly find an actor willing to work on a loved but inevitably and obviously doomed series?"
      Exec 1: "That guy from Farscape?"
      Exec 2: "Perfect!"
  • Viewer Req. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:32AM (#15954860)
    Please send Claudia "Vala" Black to Atlantis in the last scene, then make her NOT all comic relief (since you already have McKay, m'kay?), but more kick'ass, like we remember her from her introduction into the galaxy.
  • by AcidLacedPenguiN ( 835552 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:33AM (#15954863)
    . . . But I think more shows should end before they get stagnant anyway. I'm not saying that studios should just drop their show entirely, I think they should just make room for new series once they get their point across. I'm happy that SG1 is getting retired as long as they're giving space for atlantis to breathe. The same should have been done for Futurama when The Simpson's got old.
  • by sammy baby ( 14909 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:33AM (#15954864) Journal
    Okay, let me say it up front: Stargate SG-1 isn't a great show. In fact, most of the time I'd be hard-pressed to say it's even a good show. But I'm sad to see it go, and in retrospect here are a couple of notes:

    1. Did anyone else pick this part up?

    "Stargate SG-1," based on the 1994 movie starring Kurt Russell and James Spader, spent its first five years on Showtime -- which annoyed the show's producers by demanding full-frontal nudity -- before migrating to Sci Fi.

    I mean, don't get me wrong, Amanda Tapping is cute as a button, and Claudia Black (who hasn't been with the cast that long), rrowl. But I was really shocked to hear this. There are so many producers and directors out there who want to push the boundaries - is it too much to ask that those who want to make a more conventional show not be forced to throw in some gratuitous nude scenes? There wasn't even anything like that in the original movie.

    2. SG-1 is probably at its best when the cast & crew isn't taking itself too seriously. And with that in mind, let me tell you that if you missed the 200th episode... well, it's a shame. It was a bit uneven, but it was packed with in-jokes for the kind of people who like not only the show, but sci-fi in general, and even things "vaguely related" to sci-fi. (Veiled Firefly/Serenity references? Check. Not so veiled Star Trek, Farscape, and Team America: World Police references? Check.)

    Anyhoo, if you have the chance, catch the 200th episode as a rerun. You'll be glad you did.
    • by SpecialAgentXXX ( 623692 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:46AM (#15954945)
      I own all of the seasons on DVD and never saw any nudity in Seasons 1 - 5. Are you sure?
      • Apparently it's true (Score:3, Informative)

        by sammy baby ( 14909 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:53AM (#15954996) Journal
        I don't remember seeing anything particularly naughty, but courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter []...

        Anderson's humor served him well during the show's first season, which even Wright and executive producer Robert Cooper, who came onboard as a writer, admit got off to a shaky start. There were rocky story lines, and there was cringe-worthy dialogue. And there was a creative argument with Showtime.

        Wright still bristles at remembering how the channel wanted full-frontal nudity. "People said, 'It's Showtime sci-fi -- that's what fans want,'" he says. "We got lambasted by the critics for it. Here was this fun 'Star Wars'-like show with flashes of naked women."...

        But the following year, Showtime decided not to renew the series. Explains Cohen: "Showtime decided they wanted fresh programming despite the fact that 'Stargate' was popular and performing well. We were determined to find it a new home."

        Nevertheless, Wright and Cooper prepared for the show's demise. "I said to MGM, 'Let's have a spinoff show ready to launch, which would fall on the heels of a feature film,'" Wright says.

        Enter Sci Fi Channel, a natural fit for the series (no full-frontal nudity required). "The show hits squarely with our fan base," executive vp original programming Mark Stern says.

        Maybe the DVDs they released were sanitized?
      • by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:55AM (#15955015) Homepage Journal

        Check the pilot episode. The captured Air Force woman is shown to be nude (although we never see anything "naughty") and later Daniel Jackson's wife (Charee? Sharee? I dunno how it's spelled) is shown completely nude when she gets implanted with the Gou'ald.

        Other than that, I can't remember any full nudity. I remember being a little shocked when watching the pilot episode on DVD - I wasn't really expecting anything like that. It was rather gratuitous.

    • by CaptnMArk ( 9003 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:48AM (#15954956)

      >Anyhoo, if you have the chance, catch the 200th episode as a rerun. You'll be glad you


      IMO, SG-1 was ripe for cancelling at the Wormhole Xtreme episode,
      but the "merge with Farscape" made a big improvement.
    • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:57AM (#15955030) Homepage
      Stargate SG-1 isn't a great show. In fact, most of the time I'd be hard-pressed to say it's even a good show.

      no but compared to the other crap on TV, it is farking brilliant.

      ABC,NBC,CBS all have teletubbies for adults on them. Nothing that is worth a damn to watch. We record on a Replay anythign that is worth watching, everything else get's so few episodes made a year that the shows suck.

  • by forgotten_my_nick ( 802929 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:34AM (#15954870)
    "Yo Wonderbread! Sure shes a goa'uld, but I'd tap that".
  • by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:41AM (#15954912)
    "Ten seasons and 215 episodes is an astounding, Guinness World Record-setting accomplishment."

    At least the Star Trek producers had the decency to stop running the same old plots into the ground after seven seasons of their shows. SG-1 has been running the same story into the ground, over and over, for far too long. Here's hoping that they're clearing the way for something better - or at least another Galatica, which had the decency to reuse old ideas that had been on the shelf for a couple decades.
  • by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <> on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:44AM (#15954934) Journal
    Stargate has jumped the shark a number of time. Whats your personal favoriate. Personally the Artic Battle was it for me. Don't get me wrong, it was cool, but it definatly spelled the beginning of the end.
  • by saboola ( 655522 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:48AM (#15954960)
    .. Teal'c kills a kitten

    Just a thought
  • by Yonder Way ( 603108 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:49AM (#15954963)
    I mean, how could the SGC continue to operate if Cheyenne Mountain was closed down?
  • by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:49AM (#15954972)
    The wife and I enjoy a good sci-fi series (she absolutely loved Firefly!). Is SG-1 and/or Atlantis worth getting on DVD? I guess we could watch reruns on sci-fi, but I'm spoiled - I can't stand watching these things out of order anymore.
    • by kria ( 126207 ) <roleplayer.carri ... m minus math_god> on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @10:12AM (#15955147) Journal
      IMHO, the first seven seasons of SG-1 are worth it, particularly the first four. Once you've gotten through one, though, you can decide about the rest yourself. :) Eight was the season where Richard Dean Anderson had a reduced presence. Season nine and this one are mostly horrible.

      Atlantis started off a little weak it's first season, but it was very good by the end of it. The second season wasn't quite as good, but I think the currently airing third season is decent.

      And, for comparison, I, too, am a huge Firefly fan. I would say that my favorite Sci-fi channel show, though, is Battlestar Galactica, and there should be enough time to catch up before Season Three starts in October. If there isn't, I've heard that they are doing a one hour summary show sometime.
  • The show will go on (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:53AM (#15954998) i_will_go_on.shtml []
    Cooper: SG-1 will go on

    Monday - August 21, 2006 | by Darren Sumner

    Don't count Stargate SG-1 out just yet. Though SCI FI Channel has cancelled the long-running series (story), the show's producers are hard at work looking for a new outlet for the story to continue, executive producer Robert C. Cooper told GateWorld exclusively.

    "As far as the future I can't comment yet because nothing has been confirmed," Cooper said. "What we want to emphasize is that the franchise is not dying. SG-1 will go on in some way. We're just not ready to announce how."

    A formal announcement from the studio and the network is expected later this week.

    Cooper also emphasizes that, though emotions are running high among Stargate fans who have just learned the news, it is important to keep the show's ratings strong throughout the remainder of its run on SCI FI. "What's most important is that fans don't take out their frustration with SCI FI by not watching," he said. "In fact, what they need to do is watch both SG-1 and Atlantis LIVE and make sure the ratings stay strong.

    "That helps prove to other outlets that might be interested in SG-1 that the show is still as strong as we think it is."

    Could Stargate SG-1 find its way to yet another network in 2007? Or might the SG-1 team be headed for a TV movie, mini-series, direct-to-video feature ... or the big screen? Stay with GateWorld for the latest developments.
  • What a shame (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @09:54AM (#15955002)
    Starting in Season 8, SG-1 really started to go downhill, but I really felt like they were starting to put it back together this season and I was really starting to enjoy it again. When Browder first came onboard, I really felt like that was the end, but I've started liking him and I think the show has really returned to the kind of stories that make it great.

    Whether it continues or not, it has been an excellent series and will, for a while at least, have its place as, I believe, the second longest consecutive running sci-fi series in history. It's going to be hard for anyone to beat the original Dr. Who's 26 consecutive seasons, and obviously that isn't going to happen soon. I was kind of hoping SG-1 might give it a run for its money, though.

    The creators, writers, and actors who have been involved, old and new, all deserve congratulations for really fine work.
  • Too Many Secrets (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Clock Nova ( 549733 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @10:05AM (#15955087)
    Maybe they'll finally let the people of earth in on the whole Stargate thing. How the cat hasn't gotten out of the bag by this point is completely beyond my willingingness to suspend my disbelief.
  • Scifi being Scifi (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @10:08AM (#15955115) Homepage Journal
    I'm no Stargate fan, but as a fan of the original "Sliders," classic "Doctor Who," "Mystery Science Theater 3000," and other things Scifi "rescued" with great fanfare before unceremoniously killing off, I feel your pain.
  • were is the SciFi? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grapeape ( 137008 ) <mpope7 AT kc DOT rr DOT com> on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @10:09AM (#15955125) Homepage
    Why dont they just get it over and done drop BSG and rename themselves SpikeTV2. For only being a short time after the media declared Science Fiction was going mainstream why is there so little of it? Now instead of SG1, Firefly and Farscape we get Wrestling and that who wants to dress up like a tard and pretend your a superhero show. Oh well only another year or so to wait until the new Star Wars series brings on a wealth of copycats, clones and wannabees but by that time I expect that the SciFi channel wont exist anyway.
  • by iambarry ( 134796 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @10:10AM (#15955130) Homepage
    Seems to me that a movie was hinted at in the 200th episode.

    Would this be the first TV series spinoff from a movie to spin off a movie?
  • I for one, am glad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phleg ( 523632 ) <stephen@touse[ ]rg ['t.o' in gap]> on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @10:19AM (#15955204)
    I really like the show. I'd watched it sporadically whenever I saw it was on for several years, but just before season 7, I started torrenting the previous episodes, and watched them all in sequence. The first two seasons were alright, and it started picking up new and interesting story arcs in seasons 3 through 5. Six felt a little rehashed, and seven picked up with Anubis. Eight is where it legitimately should have ended, with the destruction of Anubis and the ending of virtually every side plot.

    With that said, season 9 actually surprised me with how well they managed to do, even with Richard Dean Anderson leaving, Don Davis being gone, and Amanda Tapping out of commission for a few months. Ben, Beau, and Claudia didn't feel right at first, but I gradually came to like the direction the show took; and at least there's always still Daniel and Teal'c. Plus, the Ori have been a pretty damned interesting new enemy. However, I'm glad they're cancelling the show. I'd rather them finish the Ori story reasonably quickly and end the show on a moderately high note (probably not as high as season 8, but high nonetheless) rather than dragging it on and on. While it's commendable how they've handled the transition to the new cast, it's not something that can be kept up indefinitely.
  • Paging Dr Jackson (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nastard ( 124180 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @10:32AM (#15955288)
    This may have been mentioned before, but there's been some talk in interviews and whatnot that Shanks might leave SG-1 anyway to join the Atlantis cast (where, logically, he belongs anyway). Jackson is my favorite, and this would at least give me some hope for Atlantis.
  • by Technomonics ( 970384 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @11:13AM (#15955589)
    ... because Cheyenne Mountain is going to be shut down. The oversite committee finally got their way. Of course, this is probably just some "Trust" plot to keep us in the dark... I hear though that there is a new series starting up, "Wormhole Xtreme!"
  • by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @11:22AM (#15955664)
    .... since Richard Dean Anderson left. One of the reasons why I started watching SG-1 is because of how he played the character of Jack O'Neill. He never took himself (or sometimes the situations that he found himself in) too seriously and always was good at breaking up the tension of some episodes with a good joke (eg: "That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem."). I found it hard to get into the series after that and got addicted to the re-runs prior to 2005.
  • Thank God! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @11:48AM (#15955917) Homepage Journal
    Sorry, but I never got into the show. It's too much action and not enough intellect for me. Give me the first two seasons of Sliders any day. At least there, the intellect was worshipped far more than fire power. Fire power is of little use when you're trapped inside a puzzle. And we are all trapped in that life IS a puzzle.
  • by haplo21112 ( 184264 ) <haplo&epithna,com> on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @11:52AM (#15955953) Homepage
    Everyonce in a great great while I have some small hope of seeing good TV and justifying that stupid cable bill. Then the Scifi channel pulls this idiocy. So when is the BattleStar Galactica cancellation notice coming? Perhaps they will find somemore washed up or also ran wrestling leaugues to show. Well at least maybe they will find another channel for the show.

Each honest calling, each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy based on excellence of performance. -- James Bryant Conant