This makes it very likely that the beloved Stargate franchise will return as an Amazon Prime exclusive franchise, which will be great news for those of us like myself with appetite for 60+ more seasons of that show (after the 17 seasons that have already been made).
I watched the sci-fi show "The Expanse" on Amazon Prime Video. Season 4 (the one made by Amazon Prime Video) felt like it had a tenth of the budget compared to season 1 and 2. A completely different show that I found very boring and unwatchable.
Hopefully any future Stargate revival will have the budget and writing it deserves. I would spend $20/month for the rest of my life to get a season of high budget Stargate with decent writing each year. I'm sure there is a million other fans are willing and able to pay a similar amount.
SG-1 is a great show. It holds up surprisingly well for its age. Strikes a great balance between serious and light-hearted, and the self-contained episodes often have interesting ethical or social issues. I'm also fond on how the early episodes emphasize that humans are new to interplanetary travel and are still figuring things out. There are several episodes where SG-1 travels to another planet and actually messes things up, making life worse for the natives. And the show did a great job with having things change in-universe.
There are some cliches and flaws, of course. My least favorite part is probably how non-permanent deaths were, they really overdid the whole thing with characters dying and coming back to life, or being cloned.
I'm surprised that Stargate has had some sort of franchise curse where other media never succeed. They had two more shows in the franchise (I'm in the minority that loved Universe, and I think Atlantis was for the most part bad), but never a movie aside from the one that started the franchise, never a game that succeeded (most attempts failed to even ship).
Honestly, I loved Atlantis and Universe. Atlantis was purely character driven imo. The plot was more or less a rehash of SG-1 missions to the point they directly start referencing the SG-1 mission report lol. But McKay, Sheppard, Weir, Ronan, Teyla, Carson, and Todd were all very fun characters. SG-1 was carried by the strong performances from O'Neil, Carter, Jackson, Teal'c and Hammond + interesting plots. So I was able to forgive the lazy plots in Atlantis since they focused more on the characters.
Universe was really cool. They made some critical mistakes early that made it hard to see where the show could go, but the last season was so good and setup some cool stuff just to never get the opportunity to explain it. Rush getting control of Destiny so early really messed up the pacing of the show imo, but I would have loved to see the show continue.
Atlantis couldn't decide what it was, I think. They got to some great characters, but with difficulty. Ronon replaced Ford in Season 2, with Ford being a very poorly written character, he didn't get a single interesting scene for a season. Weir was remarkably poorly written IMO, every time she made a decision it was wrong. Teyla had great moments but in too many episodes she was a "mystic Amazonian alien" cliche. Early on Atlantis tried to again do the "small band of humans versus powerful alien enemy" thing, abandoned that, transitioned to a cornier version of SG-1, then also abandoned that and went more for character stories, it was a mess. I'm also simply not a fan of its too lighthearted style, it intentionally avoided the more serious bits of SG-1.
Universe was great in my book. Detractors say it's like Stargate trying to be Battlestar Galactica, but BSG is easily my favorite sci-fi show so I actually liked that. Universe did make some mistakes early on, but the second season was great, I enjoyed Dr Rush as a very non-Stargate style main character, and I enjoyed how Universe had a completely different take on aliens, keeping them mysterious.
I haven't finished Atlantis or Universe yet. They're on my to-watch list.
As for franchising into other media... there's a brand new tabletop role-playing game that'll be launching later this year. I wonder how the Amazon deal will affect it.
> I haven't finished Atlantis or Universe yet. They're on my to-watch list.
Ooh, I _really_ enjoyed SGU. Granted, it was the kind of show that I had to try watching once, give up on, then rewatch years later during to really appreciate. It's fairly different from SG1 and SGA, but in my (humble) opinion, it's really good and I'm sad that it ended so quickly. It reminds me a bit of Lost In Space (the movie, not the relatively new tv series- I've only seen half the pilot so I can't make a comparison) but in the Stargate universe.
I started watching SG1 again (I saw it incomplete as a kid). It’s incredibly good. It pushes rationalism and feminism in a sane way that I’m not sure would happen in today’s environment. It’s incredibly rich in historical references and concepts. It’s rarely dumb and often preempts cliches. It’s still worth watching imho (and is much less known that Star Trek in US).
I consider it hands down better than any Star Trek except possibly TNG. And that's giving TNG some grace due to being a bit older; take that away and I'll give SG-1 the prize. I will agree that people can reasonably disagree about Deep Space Nine vs SG-1. But that's the level of quality we're talking about, in my opinion. It's top tier, and much less well known.
Also strongly recommend binging the first season in particular; they did a very good job of conveying the feeling of humans blundering about not really knowing what they are doing in the big new universe, and it really comes across when watched relatively quickly on top of each other. It is reasonable that as the seasons rolled on and they got their bearings this toned down in favor of other plot lines, but I think this is one of the more unusual tones in sci fi that a show managed to successfully convey. Enterprise really whiffed on this, in my opinion. (They should have had a first season more like SG-1's first season and saved the "temporal cold war" plot arc for later. Or perhaps even not at all. That would have been OK too. There are a couple of episodes that convey this sense but not enough to hold the tone IMHO.)
Also, if you are starting out, I kinda recommend the Stargate movie first... it isn't strictly speaking necessary but it will contextualize some things, even though it's only sorta half in the continuity with SG-1. But I will say that if you kinda dislike it, continue on to SG-1 anyhow. In my opinion it's a big step up in a lot of ways.
I had only seen TNG until two years ago. I knew almost every episode past season 2, and really loved it. Still do.
But then I watched Deep Space Nine, and wow. I got hooked. I "only" watched about 80 episodes that are the plot arc + a few outstanding solos, but still. The quality of the acting, the more "on the nose" social messaging, the darker side of the Federation, the racial struggles between the crew - if I hear anyone make fun of DS9, I send them on their way (which doesn't happen much like it did in the 00's).
I have some friends who liked SG-1 as kids, maybe I should take the time to watch it. But it can't be better than Battlestar Galactica :)
I have watched Stargate Atlantis but not SG-1 or SGU. I loved Atlantis and thought it was a very fun show. Looking forward to starting SG-1 when there is time...
I did a full rewatch of SG1 a few years ago, and what surprised me is how instantly the show found its footing. If you watch the first and last season of any Trek show, you can see how the writing and characterization takes a while to settle into place. Character development is part of that, but it goes beyond that.
If you watch the first and last season of SG1, the writing has its footing nailed down immediately. Not many shows find their footing so effortlessly.
That may have been helped by the fact that SG-1 got the green light for 4 full seasons right off the bat, so it gave showrunners the opportunity to write a cohesive and comprehensive story which really laid the foundation for the franchise after the original movie.
I don't have a source handy, but I recall reading about that many years ago.
Wikipedia says they were picked up for 2 seasons, totaling 44 episodes. So while it's not 4 seasons, that's still a lot of stability for a show to start with. That would explain how they felt comfortable enough to plan ahead.
I agree with all of this, but especially the last bit.
It sets up the stories to come, even if some of it borderline contradicts SG-1. The characters that go from the movie to the TV show are much more likable in the TV show.
>Also strongly recommend binging the first season in particular; they did a very good job of conveying the feeling of humans blundering about not really knowing what they are doing in the big new universe, and it really comes across when watched relatively quickly on top of each other.
One thing I've never enjoyed about Star Trek is how the Enterprise/DS9/Voyager and its crew are the ones that always save the day/week/universe.
I've never watched Stargate, but I do know that occasionally the show shows other exploration teams enter/exit the gate. Does the franchise go further than that, and implicitly/explicitly state that the Stargate team that the show focuses on is just one of many doing comparably cool things?
Stargate: SG-1 series takes its name from SG-1 - the first of many teams USAF sends through the gate on a regular basis. The show focuses on that team, and in this way, it's similar to how Star Trek shows tend to focus on its eponymous ship/station. They somehow end up with most of the cool adventures and do most of the world-saving.
Where it feels more believable/acceptable than Star Trek is:
- SG-1 being special is at least somewhat justified. It's the first team Stargate Command sent through the gate (after the events of the original movie), so they got to be the first to make new friends and enemies.
- The show constantly reminds you about existence of increasing amount of other teams, through namedropping, discussing them, showing them, or showing multi-team missions. While SG-1 may be the tip of the spear, you know that SG-2 through SG-whocankeeptrack are following close behind.
- Unlike in Star Trek, in Stargate, humans start having no idea what they're doing. Quite often, it's them who need to be saved by more powerful forces, whether aliens or institutions.
Stargate: Atlantis starts with a focus on wider cast - so the gate missions are more fluid, you don't care much about who's assigned to which gate team on any given day. The whole ensemble of characters work similarly to a Star Trek series crew. But it makes sense for the same reason most of ST:Voyager made sense: Atlantis expedition is very far away from Earth, alone and with (at least initially) no backup.
I'd go with, yes and no, probably mostly no the way you mean it. They are always the elite team. It's clear others are functioning, yeah, but while I haven't watched this in a while I don't recall SG-4 ever saving the galaxy as we know it.
Then I'd also add that while SG-1 does improve in my opinion as it finds its own footing as most shows do, if you don't at least somewhat enjoy the first episode of SG-1 you can walk away with your head held high. I don't think you have to give it half-a-season like many shows (or 2 seasons like TNG...), they came out very strong at the beginning. It's not the best episode by any means, but it's a fair representative.
(Also as mentioned elsewhere in the thread the third episode is pretty weak.)
(Some versions may have a quite literally gratuitous nudity scene in the first episode. Apparently Showtime demanded one, but a bit bizarrely, left them alone after that and that's the last such thing in the series. I suppose in this era of Game of Thrones this will seem less bizarre than it may have at the time, but it is worth pointing out this is a one-off. So if that happens to be the only reason you like SG-1's first episode, you can stop. :) )
Like you I also recently restarted watching SG-1 for the first time since I was a kid. It holds up a lot better than I expected it to. There's the occasional eyerolling cliche (and Carter's dialog about internal vs external gonads is kinda ridiculous) but like you said the cliches are also lampshaded pretty often. I just watched an episode where the Stargate broke and there was an exchange that went something like this—
General Hammond: How long will it take to fix the Stargate?
Technician: It'll be about 24 hours sir
Hammond: You have 12 hours
Technician. Sir, that's not how this works... it'll take about 24 hours
SG-1 was my therapy during my worst years. I don't think I'd have gone through that period as well as I did, if it weren't for the mix of laughter and seriousness every episode of this show offered.
And what I love about it, SG-1 pulls it off. It's a serious show that's also very genre-savvy and full of quality gags. I haven't seen any other media product, sci-fi or otherwise, that managed to get this mix of opposites to work.
(It's all nicely balanced, except that one time in Season 7 where you thought you're watching a joke episode, until the sudden change of tone punches you in the head, and you're left emotionally spinning and wondering what the hell did just happen. The two-parter I'm referring to, "Heroes", is a masterpiece. This kind of thing works only once - and fortunately, the producers were smart enough to not try it again.)
The characters are so good. The plot lines are great. The enemies are actually bad.
While TNG is idealistic and more or less wholesome, SG1 definitely lines up with DS9 in that it's more real/gritty yet still has all the hope, fun, morals, ethics, etc.
With the possible exception of the Ori, the villains in SG-1 weren't usually the "like the last one, but MORE POWERFUL" villain trope we see in most series.
And the evolution of the replicants... that was a complicated adversary.
My parents watched a lot of sci fi TV when I was kid, SG-1 is the only show that I ever actually sat down and watched more than the occasional episode of.
I remember being struck by a scene that was (I believe?) pretty early in the series where Sam's about to fight some guy hand to hand; Jack protests this (but not in a way that makes it clear whether he thinks a woman shouldn't do it or if he's just unsure of her fighting skill), but once getting told what level she had trained to he immediately backs off.
It gave me (who was at most 13 years old I think) the impression of what good respect between the sexes should look like.
I could also be mis-remembering this because it's been a really long time though.
S1E3 Emancipation... one of the most disliked episodes by most fans but I agree that the scene was handled well... but the rest of the episode is not good. The writer of the episode (Katharyn Powers, who only worked on SG1 in season 1) was also the writer of the Star Trek TNG first season episode "Code Of Honor", which is frequently considered in the bottom 3 episodes of any Star Trek series, and many find very racist.
I just started doing the same last week (weird to suddenly see this thread after not much mention of SG1 for a long time...) and agree it is great. It is nice to watch as a series instead of the random odd episode I saw as a kid watching cable TV in the 90s. There is so much more of it than I remembered. I've almost finished season 1, so it's going to tide me over for a good long while!
I envy you, I wish I could forget everything about the show, so that I could experience it fresh again. Having watched it end-to-end 3+ times over the past decade, it's burned hard into my brain.
I recently finished a rewatch of it. It has held up far better than it has any right to. One thing that’s really stood out to me is the insane amount of technology change that happened over SG-1 — the show ran from 1996 to 2004. It went from laughable 3D CG on a Showtime budget, CRTs and landlines to heavy CG on a SciFi Channel budget, flatscreens and tiny cell phones.
It does have its dumb moments though. Basically anything involving real-world weapons or explosives. There were also a few weak seasons in the middle, and it’s pretty obvious the main cast started phoning it in around season 5. But on the whole I agree, it’s one of the best Sci Fi shows ever made and absolutely belongs with the best of Trek.
That one surprised me (positively) when I noticed it. Particularly when I binge-watched it end-to-end and saw how the cellphones evolve across the show.
> Basically anything involving real-world weapons or explosives
You're telling me that P90 is not the weapon to save the galaxy?
> Season 4 (the one made by Amazon Prime Video) felt like it had a tenth of the budget compared to season 1 and 2. A completely different show that I found very boring and unwatchable.
Season 4 follows book 4, whereas previous seasons split the books in a non-typical fashion: e.g., S02E05 ("Home") was the end of book 1. Book 4 is also part of the second kind-of-trilogy and so is a bit slower paced, because it set ups the next two books.
This isn't really Amazon's fault: it's from the original content.
The show was weird from the start -- the first season was the first half of the first book, then they adapted the second half of the first book and the first half of the second book for season two (and likewise for S3 and books 2 & 3). Season 4 largely resolved that by wrapping up book 3 and adapting all of book 4 in one go, since book 4 is kinda slow on its own.
The show is weird because the source material is kind of schlocky and the show improves it significantly. I think season 4 is so hard to watch because book 4 is a self-contained story so they couldn’t blend characters and scenarios like in the previous book. The book characters are all a little too one-dimensional and the show does an excellent job condensing them into well-rounded characters.
I had to stop reading halfway through book 5 because I couldn’t take the heavy use of cliched language and tropes. The books are a great story at the macro level, but the writing is pretty terrible, especially as the series goes on.
This. I’ve read them all but my god is the writing terrible, or at least half of it. It’s written by two guys one who is a big sci-fi fan/writer who writes all the good characters (Bobby, Avasarala to name two of my favorites.) But the other guy, Daniel Abrahams, is a horrible writer imo and his shit writing bleeds through. I’ll also add that they can’t really write women and it seems like it’s written by two male nerds who didn’t engage with many women before meeting their wives (which is why they write women best when there’s no relationships involved.)
Jesus, if the show significantly improves on the books in that regard then I can't imagine what the books are like. I'm mid-way through S2 of the show right now. I like the realistic portrayal of what space travel/interplanetary colonies might look like. All the political stuff. But some of the dialogue and characterization is still embarrassingly cliched.
I don't know. People keep complaining about Cibola Burn (book 4), but I liked it. I genuinely consider it one of the better ones.
That's perhaps because it's the first, and to date the most detailed, exploration of the aliens and their technology, which to me is the most interesting part (after Earth-Mars politics).
But then, I'm the weird guy who thinks character development is overrated, and reads sci-fi for the ideas.
The whole series is like a tease. I like book 4 a lot too because I started reading this series to read about alien monstrosities, etc. Then the next three books turn back into a political theatre and it only gets good again in book 8 when they start looking at different alien systems. The series should have been a lot less books, but it makes sense the writers themselves have said they have the whole story in mind, up to the last sentence, and they’re just adding in pacing. I think it’d be better to have a trilogy with the first two books, the second two and then the last trilogy (no need for books 4&5 since, as I said, I’m wanting to read about an ancient alien civilization.)
I’ve read all the books and S4 was my favorite so far as it didn’t look as cheesy (the first few seasons have that “syfy” tint to them, which is strange considering they have the same budget) but S5 was not good, imo, which sucks because it’s probably my second favorite book. Too much filler it really should have been 8 episodes tops.
If it makes you feel better the fourth book of The Expanse is the most boring in my opinion and the show stuck to the plot for the most part throughout. I still enjoyed both the book and the fourth season but the action and production really picks back up in the fifth season.
The expanse has a lot of problems. Mainly the fact that the creators dislike "disaster porn". Thus making the show completely devoid of any emotional impact.
Like the rocks falling was filmed in such a way as to be the least emotionally impactful to the viewer. I don't think they could have done anything more than they did to make it un-emotional. It is incredibly bizarre.
I agree with that, I think the way the rocks were handled in the books was much more impactful. It all felt a bit analytical and detached in the show which I didn't like. It still had an emotional impact for me but that may be because I was relating it to how I felt while reading it.
Yes, season 4 has the exact same budget per episode and the same production company/crew as the other seasons. Amazon doesn't have anything to do with perceived changes (I thought 4 was still good and 5 was great).
I'm chugging through book 2 at the moment, I hate reading books right after I watched a show since I'm already aware of most of the events and the plot direction, but I want to see where the show diverged in the later seasons and of course get to the books after that.
SG1 is indeed an amazing series, the showrunners did a great job blending action, mythology, and light-hearted sci-fi into a very watchable show.
I was less thrilled with Atlantis, and thought Universe was completely horrible. Let's not even acknowledge the existence of "Origins".
I do hope Amazon will be good stewards of the franchise going forward. I don't want them to make new content only for it to be dark, gritty, drama-heavy, and politicised the way much of modern "entertainment" has become.
Maybe we'll even get a few good Stargate video games out of this! So many lost opportunities on the gaming front - an MMO was in the works, but never got released.
Stargate revival is my main hope about all this. I don't know that they could do a continuation/sequel because the world of Stargate at this point is pretty complex and far from our universe. So they would probably do a reboot which is risky because the actors had such great chemistry together.
Wow I thought it was just me who didn’t like season 4 of the expanse. At some point they made a turn to focusing on the flaws of all the main characters to an obnoxious degree.
> I watched the sci-fi show "The Expanse" on Amazon Prime Video. Season 4 (the one made by Amazon Prime Video) felt like it had a tenth of the budget compared to season 1 and 2. A completely different show that I found very boring and unwatchable.
Ultimately that's one show though. Amazon have spent BIG on some of their series. The Grand Tour had an enormous, enormous budget compared to Top Gear. They are spending Game of Thrones money on Wheel of Time.
You definitely need to read 7 as there’s a big change in that book that sets up 8. I will say that 7 is a lot better than 6 but, again, there’s very little proto-builder stuff. The whole series builds up to 8 in a slow drag (it sucks) but book 8 is pretty good as a high fantasy/sci-fi book. I really think these books should have just been a trilogy
I watched the sci-fi show "The Expanse" on Amazon Prime Video. Season 4 (the one made by Amazon Prime Video) felt like it had a tenth of the budget compared to season 1 and 2. A completely different show that I found very boring and unwatchable.
Hopefully any future Stargate revival will have the budget and writing it deserves. I would spend $20/month for the rest of my life to get a season of high budget Stargate with decent writing each year. I'm sure there is a million other fans are willing and able to pay a similar amount.