PDA

View Full Version : Stargate



Doglord
2007-02-07, 10:55 AM
Which is your favourite?

Jack Squat
2007-02-07, 11:15 AM
GAAAAH! Can't choose!

BTW, SG-1 should be split up into the O'Neill era and the Mitchell era.

DocZoid
2007-02-07, 11:17 AM
Atlantis, then O'Neill era.

Emperor Tippy
2007-02-07, 12:06 PM
O'Neill era and then the other 2 are tied because I haven't watched either of them enough to make an informed decision.

Om
2007-02-07, 12:07 PM
How can you have Stargate without MacGuyver... I mean O'Neill?

pestilenceawaits
2007-02-07, 01:31 PM
what about the Kurt Russell era :P I definitely like SG1 better.

Jack Squat
2007-02-07, 02:51 PM
what about the Kurt Russell era :P

It was inferior. Russell doesn't do good with roles that require alot of talking. That and I can't watch the movie without thinking of him as Snake Plissken.

Starblade
2007-02-07, 03:23 PM
You should have put a both option on your poll. Sometimes the series interweave plots a little. (like when they get a message through to earth and earth sends reinforcements) There is almost no point in seperating them because they are so well written.
I just watch them both and enjoy.

pestilenceawaits
2007-02-07, 03:28 PM
It was inferior. Russell doesn't do good with roles that require alot of talking. That and I can't watch the movie without thinking of him as Snake Plissken.

I like him in a lot of things (big trouble in little china for example) but I agree he wasn't great in this. when I saw the movie the first thing I thought was this wold be an awesome television show.

Don Julio Anejo
2007-02-07, 06:28 PM
SG1 pre Jonas Quinn era... for some reason I never liked that guy. Daniel was miles better...

AmoDman
2007-02-07, 06:50 PM
I voted Atlantis. Thing is,SG-1 truly and honestly does bring back fond, familiar memories. Even that sound effect of the Zat gun was nostalgic for me when I heard it recently (why exactly didn't they take any of those back to Atlantis), and the core SG-1 crew are great familiar faces...but I just love hilariously awesome of the core Atlantis personalities! Granted, the writers seem to obsess over McKay/Shepherd and their chemistry, but god damn if I don't think it's awesome. Also, SG-1 seems to have been stretching on forever, but I haven't really been watching it lately anyway...

It's the community that makes Atlantis great as well. I can't remember all of their names, but I always like seeing Zalenka, that other team leader, and other such recurring faces with actual personalities (that aren't just visiting aliens) add to the on-screen formula. Though I will admit, Weir is wearing a little thin (though she does have her moments)...and Ronon/Tayla have seemed quite 1-dimensional lately, but mostly because I think they're criminally underusing their characters (Except for that great flashback episode w/Ronon). I actually read that Weir will become recurring next season and Carter will come in for a steady 14 episodes. Some people I hear don't like SG-1 converging on Atlantis since it's ending...but I think it'll be interesting. Carter's already been involved with Atlantis here and there anyway.

*spoiler*

Though I am TIIIIIICCCCKKKKEEEDDDDD at the random, retarded, meaningless death of Carson Beckett. F'in pissed me off completely. And the very next episode, the death is already forgotten. The characters don't even (that we see) take time to deal with it! ARRRGGHH!!! That wouldn't happen with Carson around :'(.

*please pull a Daniel, please pull a Daniel, please pull a Daniel, please pull a Daniel...*

p.s. Is it just me, or is it creepy whenever Atlantis moves over to the SG-1 set for a bit and you don't see any of the familiar SG-1 faces other than the gate dialer guy and retarded general (or Hammond, first season)? It just seems...wrong.

Jack Squat
2007-02-07, 08:42 PM
I like him in a lot of things (big trouble in little china for example) but I agree he wasn't great in this. when I saw the movie the first thing I thought was this wold be an awesome television show.

I'm not saying he's bad, but one of the best roles he did was in Soldier, in which he said about 10 words.

Don Julio Anejo
2007-02-08, 02:36 AM
Nah he's pretty good in Overboard in a comedy role. Except the movie is from 1987...

The Dirge
2007-02-08, 02:42 AM
O'neill era is the best in my opinion.

Doglord
2007-02-08, 12:59 PM
BTW, SG-1 should be split up into the O'Neill era and the Mitchell era.


Good point. I think thats why its being cancelled because popularity waned when mitchell came in.

Swordguy
2007-02-08, 01:54 PM
Good point. I think thats why its being cancelled because popularity waned when mitchell came in.

[Teal'c] Indeed [/Teal'c]

:smallwink:

Athenodorus
2007-02-08, 02:00 PM
Good television shows all have one thing in common: Witty Banter.
Without O'Neill, SG went downhill in that department. Though the Daniel/Vala exchanges amuse the boop out of me.

Hephaestus
2007-02-08, 04:17 PM
Neither...

Once MacGyver left my interest wanned. And the show's not really sci-fi at all anymore, it's just rediculous. I prefer old reruns of ST:TNG any day.

Muz
2007-02-08, 04:49 PM
Please don't say boop. I frelling hate that word. :)

AmoDman
2007-02-08, 05:22 PM
Neither...

Once MacGyver left my interest wanned. And the show's not really sci-fi at all anymore, it's just rediculous. I prefer old reruns of ST:TNG any day.

What are you talking about? Both shows are approximately the same in theme now as when they started. It's true, they both have a bit more of a fantasy feel to them, which I think is great, cause w/o it they'd have to be quite different shows to be successful.

J_Muller
2007-02-08, 07:18 PM
O'Neill era is definately superior. Especially with Daniel. Quinn was good, but not to the level Daniel achieved. They made the right decision to just have Daniel come back almost immediately after he dies from that point on.

Matthew
2007-02-08, 07:45 PM
I dunno, some of the best episodes belonged to the Jonas era, like when O'Neill gets captured by Bhaal. That was great.

It's not so much Mitchell, as it is the writing that sucks in the last two seasons. The Ori was a potentially great plot, but they mucked it up with too many filler episodes and too much 'Merlin'. Still, the 200th episode was absolutely hilarious.

averagejoe
2007-02-09, 12:25 AM
SGI, definitely. The O'Niel era. I just keep thinking of that 200th episode line (paraphrasing), "For the final member of the team, I've found someone who can always make jokes, even at the most inapropriate times."


Neither...

Once MacGyver left my interest wanned. And the show's not really sci-fi at all anymore, it's just rediculous. I prefer old reruns of ST:TNG any day.

You know, I love it and all, but, with a few notable exceptions Star Trek really isn't that sci-fi. I mean, it's basically all magic, they just have "dilithium crystals" instead of mana and "transporters" instead of the ability to teleport. Nothing there, however, is really in a scientific context.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-02-09, 04:01 AM
I think the movie's a decent watch (not great, but not terrible either) As for the shows, I really never got into either of them.

Ashildr_the_Bard
2007-02-09, 04:14 AM
The O'Neill era is the best. I want to be Jack O'Neill when I grow up.

Don Julio Anejo
2007-02-09, 04:44 AM
Stargate's focus is more of a "USAF special forces team in a fantasy/scifi setting" (depends on the world), while Star Trek (all of them) is a "high-tech ship (station) in a futuristic world."

And Joe, sci-fi and fantasy aren't really that different. Fantasy is more of an ancient world/medieval setting, sci-fi is futuristic. But you're right, a lot of basic things are exactly the same, they're just called differently. There's even magic portals in Star Trek. They're called wormholes..

Personally I like the first few seasons most because they were still exploring the setting and there was something new everyday. I just don't like character development (i.e. O'Neill captured by Bhaal) that much.

averagejoe
2007-02-09, 02:28 PM
And Joe, sci-fi and fantasy aren't really that different. Fantasy is more of an ancient world/medieval setting, sci-fi is futuristic. But you're right, a lot of basic things are exactly the same, they're just called differently. There's even magic portals in Star Trek. They're called wormholes.

The big difference is in how it's presented. These days, sci-fi basically is just fantasy with spaceships, but ideally the author would have some actual scientific knowledge and be able to speculate on such things. Or, at the very least, be able to speculate about the direction of mankind.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-02-09, 02:36 PM
There's even magic portals in Star Trek. They're called wormholes..


Except for the fact that wormholes actually have scientific theories written about them, and physicists do research about them. Magic portals are just a figment of someone's imagination.

Jack Squat
2007-02-09, 02:41 PM
Except for the fact that wormholes actually have scientific theories written about them, and physicists do research about them. Magic portals are just a figment of someone's imagination.

exactly. now it'd take something like the amount of energy produced by the sun in a month to keep a meter-wide wormhole open for any decent amount of time, but it is possible.

Archonic Energy
2007-02-09, 02:49 PM
http://www.thescifiworld.net/img/smilies/stargate/tealc/tealc-gun02.gifhttp://www.thescifiworld.net/img/smilies/stargate/prior/prioranime01.gifhttp://www.thescifiworld.net/img/smilies/stargate/cameron/cameronanime11.gif
Hallowed are the Ori

Atlantis. FTW tho.

http://www.thescifiworld.net/img/smilies/stargate/sheppard/sheppard59.gif