SG-1 not in new film!

[Indiana]

I recieved an e-mail from MGM telling me that SG-1 would not be in the new film. Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich will return to conrinue with the original story that they intended to do. Stargate will become a Trilogy and it's success will lie in Kurt Russells and James Spaders talents. Despite rumours of an SG-1 plotline MGM believe that it would be more beneficial and more profitable if they stuck with the original idea. A mainstream audience would not understand the storyline and what has been going on in the last 4 years with SG-1. This is the reason that the TV show will be axed. They cannot afford to run two conflicting storylines so they will drop SG-1 and replace it with Stargate 2.

 

[padders]

um... questionable....

Even if they do go back to the original with the film then i don't think this means they will drop the show at all. The main reason they are considering doing another film must be the popularity of the show. I don't think they will drop the popular one to bring back the other!

 

[shiloh]

That's what I was afraid would happen. Ratz.

 

[Vera]

What a pity! I hoped it'll be SG-1 in the new film.

 

[Jaxie]

hold up, this is for real.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

can they actually continue on from the film?:evil: :evil: :evil:

 

[padders]

probably like they did in the books but still not good i don't think. I do actually recon they could do a film with sg-1 that everyone could watch, you would not use any of the characters already introduced so far apart from the very core, and peraps Tho'r - maybe a new goa'uld thread or something like that. If you make it very new then the new watchers need no more explaining than the old viewers.

 

[Jaxie]

just doesn't sound like it would work.
and hey are the books not based on the series

 

[kelsi]

Originally posted by Indiana
I recieved an e-mail from MGM telling me that SG-1 would not be in the new film.

How come you get e-mails from MGM?! D'ya know when they are gonna start filming? And y is this page so wide?!

 

[padders]

- books continued the series as opposed to the film, so this will make the 3rd timeline starting from the end of the first film - a bad idea in my opinion.
- it is so wide because of all the OOOOO on one of the posts above, i broke up the O to shorten it.
- MGM emails can be got by subscribing at MGM for their annoucements, can't remember if you need to go to www.mgm.com or their stargate site.

 

[Indiana]

joke

I was joking.

 

[kelsi]

funny. Aren't you from gaters.net?

 

[padders]

Originally posted by padders
um... questionable....

Even if they do go back to the original with the film then i don't think this means they will drop the show at all. The main reason they are considering doing another film must be the popularity of the show. I don't think they will drop the popular one to bring back the other!

i did wonder.....

 

[Indiana]

I go to gaters.net.

Why do you ask?

 

[padders]

I am sure it was just a question asking if you did. Please lets not have an argument about it.

 

[sarahksg1]

i don't get it, if their gonna carry on from the original film how does that work??? So much information has come out of the series that if they went back to where they were in the film what would they do???

Considering you still have Jack and Daniel in the original film would they go back to the first ep of Sg1???

 

[jwells]

Updated News

I've recently read that there may be TWO films. One that continues from the last film and one that continues from SG-1. They will both be made by different people and will be completely separate. The one that continues from the film will be made by Devlin and Emmerich, the other will be made by the SG-1 producers. Devlin apparently originally planned for a whole trilogy of Stargate movies.

However, even more recently, I've read that Dean Devlin is acknowledging the SG-1 movie and may give up on making his own movie since it would conflict with SG-1.

So, there should only be one film for now.

 

[Dr.Jackson]

I don't know if I could watch and fully enjoy a second Stargate film that followed on from the first. I'd be constantly referring to the series, and that, for a huge number of SG-1 fans would spoil a second film.

With the two Stargate films, I'm not sure that would be viable, having two films with similar titles released soon after one another by the same company and having similar back stories. People would most likely go and see one or the other.

Anyway, that just happens to be how I feel about it....

 

[PTeppic]

Re: Updated News

Originally posted by jwells
Devlin apparently originally planned for a whole trilogy of Stargate movies.

This appears in an interview he did when SG-1 started. He also appeared fairly critical of the SG-1 premise, though I can't remember which bit. And he said the second and third films were going in a different direction from that taken by SG-1...

So, depending on what that direction was, it IS possible to have both films. But, they may have to take the new direction and technology of the SG-1 canon into consideration?

 

[PTeppic]

Originally posted by Dr.Jackson People would most likely go and see one or the other.

This Reetou would certainly be seeing both... I think fans of the show would probably risk them both too. "Non fans" (if such people exist ) might only pick one or the other though...

 

[Dr.Jackson]

Originally posted by PTeppic
I think fans of the show would probably risk them both too. "Non fans" (if such people exist ) might only pick one or the other though...

I'd risk both, but as I said, probably wouldn't enjoy the one following on from the original movie as much as if, in some warped alternate reality (watch that mirror!), SG-1 had never gone ahead.

If the two films had come out, most people would go for the one with Kurt Russell and James Spader, than the hardly heard of Amanda Tapping and Michael Shanks. As a general member of the public, you'd be more likely to choose a film with a few big names in it.