Stargate: Universe. It’s an unusually usual title compared to SG-1 and Atlantis. And I fear the show itself may end up being similarly usual.
The Stargate franchise today is a far cry from the creative strength SG-1 displayed some six or so years ago. Why? Simple. The writer’s room has suffered from the same affliction that suffers all long-running sci-fi shows. It happened to Star Trek, The X-Files; some would argue that Lost is suffering from it already.
The problem lies in the fact that no show is infinitely sustainable. Individual concepts will last longer than another ““ SG-1 for instance lent itself well to an episode-of-the-week format that was likely to be able to survive quite a long time. And it did ““ ten whole seasons. Atlantis had a similar concept ““ episodic adventures of the week ““ but this time there were half a dozen years of material already written by essentially the same writers team. Could originality really by expected for another ten years? The show lasted exactly half that, and was arguably weaker than its predecessor. What fate Universe, therefore?
There are several things going for the new sequel. Namely, it has the potential ““ note: potential ““ to shake up the format a little. Robert Carlyle’s character ““ the lead of the show ““ could well be the first lead character of a Stargate show to be devious and manipulative rather than the clichéd and stoic American hero the writers have known to embrace. Coupled with the supposedly darker nature of the show, Universe has the potential to rely further upon character conflict than previous Gate incarnations. Certainly the acting talent is there. Ming-Na and Carlyle for instance are tried and tested actors with a great array of talent. Then again, David Hewlett was a fantastic talent for Atlantis, and there’s only so much individual talent can do to shore up collaborative failings above.
Additionally, the setting is slightly different. Set on a starship rather than fixed planet (yes, I know Atlantis was a city ship, but it didn’t go places often), the series should be able to tap into a wider array of story possibilities than the planet-of-the-week concept that has driven the franchise for over a decade. However even then, the show has strong Battlestar Galactica vibes – which it clearly shouldn’t have if its aiming to be something original: something Stargate clearly needs. Whether the writing department realise that potential is, however, another matter.
Star Trek: Voyager promised isolation from Earth, real danger and character conflict in the form of the Maquis/Starfleet divide. But the show was even lighter in tone than Deep Space Nine had been, and within a few years ways were found of limiting the extent of the isolation from which Voyager suffered.
Similarly, the Stargate writers have fallen into similar traps with Atlantis. Another tale of isolation, Earth was involved within a series, and crossovers became a bi-weekly occurrence. The tell-tale sign of a flagging concept: the child show falling back upon the success of its predecessor. That Universe should be immune from such failings is a pretty optimistic outlook ““ they’ve been made by the same writers before.
However, is it really their fault? If the network continues to order and accept the pitches for these shows, then the writers are just doing their job. It is surely the job of Sci-Fi (I’m denying the change to the SyFy brand) to rectify that ““ for instance to demand more challenging scripts. For the talent is surely there ““ see Atlantis’s The Shrine for further details. The problem is an absence of ideas symptomatic of a show or idea on the air for far too long.
Shows like 24 seem to get by creatively (for the most part) by drafting in new writers each season from other shows in order to inject fresh ideas. The Stargate team could perhaps do with a few outside views in order to ensure Universe doesn’t fall back into the same old tricks.
Of course, such creative rejuvenation doesn’t automatically mean success. Given the direction in which Sci-Fi/SyFy is heading, it wouldn’t be too surprising if the channel drafted in the writers of The O.C. or some other teenage hit in order to sex-up and rejuvenate the show. The whole younger/edgier nonsense works in some cases ““ even in some unexpected ones, when the talent is there (e.g. Battlestar Galactica). Does the current writing team have the talent to pull of a directionary overhaul? I fear not, given how Atlantis turned out. Could they surprise me and create a good show? Absolutely.
But for how long? How long will it be before they can gate back to Earth each week? How long will it be before Atlantis and SG-1 alumni turn up to save the day? I hope my cynicism is proven to be nothing more than bitter, nonsensical rambling, but deep down I know the show will turn out something like Atlantis or Voyager, or even Enterprise: squandered potential.
Here’s to being wrong.
Further discussion will occur in our upcoming Continuum podcast.
This is spot on, and predicting. I watched Atlantis, not a great fan of SG-1, primarily due to the acting prowess of Flanigan and Hewlitt.
I have loved Atlantis for quite a while now,becoming a huge fan of J.Flanigan in the process. The last season was somewhat of a disappointment at times, focusing on a ridiculous romance instead of team sci-fi action and adventure. However, I still enjoyed it and was extemely saddened when it was cancelled.
Becuase of how that show was disgarded for the new “toy” instead of making the changes and investing the resources that SGA could have used, I won’t watch Universe, no matter what direction it takes, or how good it is. I am not the only one who feels this way. Although we may not be statistically significant, I would think MGM/Sci-Fi would not want to lose anyone.
They should have run the two shows concurrently, at least for the first few seasons, and I’d have had no problem at all.
That said, even if I had no bad feelings towards the new show, dark and depressing, “realistic” themes like BSG and Lost hold no interest for me.
Yeah, another Atlantis fan here. We seem to rove in a pack, eh?
The last few seasons of SGA kinda sucked. There were a few bones thrown our way (The Shrine) but for the most part, it was dying. I don’t like the fact that the show was tossed out without fixing for the new shiny toy. As a hard-core SGA fan, I will not be watching SGU. I’ve attended a few conventions and groups and it seems the majority of the fan base is women around 30-40 years old. We hear that they want a younger demographic. That’s basically a F-U to us fans. I will follow wherever David Hewlett touches down, but I will not follow Universe.
The writing team at the Stargate franchise are quite talented and resourceful and they appear to be bringing in outside talent into the process. So, Universe may well surprise all the “doubters”. And besides, the cast is really impressive. I can’t wait to see Robert Carlyle’s character in action.
I am hoping that in spite of the darker premise than the two previous shows, there will still be the franchise’s signature “humor” in this show. That’s what drew me to watch Stargate regularly in the first place.
I, for one, plan to watch and will give this next chapter in the Stargate franchise a good shot.
I am surprised that these Atlantis “fans” even call themselves fans of the stargate universe. Not giving SG:U a chance because your pissed about how TPTB handled the cancelling is just childish and well pretty lame. Are you 10 years old? I love SG-! and Atlantis and i think both ended before their time, but it doesnt mean i will not watch SG:U just because of that. True Stargate fans will give SG:U a shot. Go cry to your mothers little boys and girls.
I just want to get something straight as one of the big misconceptions of SG:U is that they want the younger demographic at the expense of the current fan demographic. They are not trying to replace 30-40 year old women with 18-25 male/female demographic, they are trying to add it on.
I have all faith in Brad and Robert and Joe, that they can continue to provide stories that please the existing fan base, while still doing stories that will appeal to a younger market.
And just for the record I am male and 26 years old, been watching SG since SG-1 Season 1, so I am not that far off the demographic that they are trying to tap in to.
I think you raise a few good points, but I feel that your post is has the cart before the horse. Everything I’ve heard from the producers and writers is that they have and are growing as creators and needed a show that would cater to that growth. SG1 and SGA both were set in there ways; only so much could be changed. SGU on the other hand, is in a position to foster that growth. So it’s not that the writers and being asked to cater to this new show, the new show was created to cater to them.
Sure they could fall back on the older formulas, but I’m more optimistic.
Now I’m sure I could be way off on my take, but I have high hopes for the show and will definitely give it a chance.
You’re catch phrase should be: “I have no idea what I am talking about: Deal with it.” This ‘article’ was no different then listening to someone rant on about a business they know nothing about, other than the fact that they make sure to watch as much television as possible. You are obviously clueless about the show because not that much has been released. The fact is that you feel it is o.k. to try an derail someone’s hard work because you have a blog that 20 people read is a bit ridiculous.
What you are ignoring is the fact that the Stargate franchise has a built in audience that is much bigger that the vocal online MINORITY and it will serve to keep the show on air as long as the show maintains a level quality. It is obvious to me that the powers that be are updating and modernizing the the franchise, as well as bringing on stronger talent than any of the previous incarnations of Stargate. Robert Carlyle along could act his way around any previous cast member, and Joe Flanigan wouldn’t qualify to hold his cup of coffee.
I for one hope you don’t watch… reading an apology would sound pretty sad.
I can’t wait for SGU…
@ David,
You’re obviously entitled to your opinion. I’ve watched Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis from the beginning of both, and am pretty well versed in both shows. What I am stating about Universe thus far is taken – you are correct – from the scarce material we have thus far.
But I fear you’ve made a misunderstanding. What I am saying is NOT that Universe is awful. But that I fear, for all its hype, Universe will fall into the same traps that the previous Stargate fell into in some form. These fears were outlined in the blog above.
I agree with you that Robert Carlyle is a fantastic talent, and I believe there is a good deal of talent on the Stargate writing team. However, from my evidence of previous shows, some great talent is not truly realised. Stargate frequently shirks from delving deeply into its own universe. For instance, the Tok’ra: so little of their culture, infra-structure etc. was revealed, and countless such story opportunities were wasted on less plots – especially in the later seasons.
Stargate shows have had great talent in them before (RDA, David Hewlett etc.) But these shows fell into certain traps. For instance, Atlantis promised something more edgy – and it failed to deliver, ending up quickly with easy travel between Earth and Pegasus. Character crossovers became commonplace, and suddenly it seemed that there was little difference between SG-1 and Atlantis. The strengths of the Atlantis premise faded quite quickly.
Obviously Atlantis had some excellent episodes (see my review on the Shrine if you think I do little but complain needlessly). I’ve seen some fantastic science fiction come out of both shows, and doubtlessly Universe will produce some good shows.
But for a show which has a premise which thrives upon isolation, independence from its predecessors and something darker and edgier (yes – more modern), the fact that I’ve heard Amanda Tapping is already signed on for a guest spot means I can’t help but fear it’ll follow in Atlantis’s footsteps.
I hope Universe will prove me wrong – I wrote that above. Additionally, I am not trying to derail anything. I know executive producer Joseph Mallozzi has read and responded to this blog – and I welcome that. I hope he takes the comments and fears onboard.
You of course have your opinion, and I have mine. If you wish to continue ‘debating’ with insults, feel free. I’m happy to continue justifying and rationalising my views based upon solid and valid opinion.
Chris.
Additionally, we have about 10,000 regular readers. Just as a point of information.
David –
It does have a Battlestar look about it – at least in promos!
hi i liked the SG-A and SG-1 but i want 2 no were SG-U will show
DS9 was light in tone?!?!?!
To me, it’s a little bit difficult to understand the motives of this article; Then, rather than criticizing it like it has done with SG, I’d like to just express my opinion about the whole thing.
– The stargate itself, it’s always about destroying the portal…. “They’d” just build another.
– Things go through, but why not just blast shots through it; A ship firing through to the Earth’s portal would be sufficient. Not a bad idea, if you ask the alien in me.
Etc., the list stretches far beyond what WordPress will accept here in the comment section. Even by a far stretch of imagination, it’s difficult to imagine that this sort of content can appeal to anyone above the age of 9. Funny.
P.S. No, I am not implying that fast-paced g.i. joe-type-of-thing would’ve been better (it isn’t, as that movie proves). Just some rational thought.
So far I’ve sat through all of the episodes of SGU and there isn’t much that I have to show for it. So far the only thing close to being gun play was a suicide and a guy geting winged in the arm for running away. To try to get viewers they keep parading girls into the shower or broom closset. The plot moves slower than a soap opera. I get the who lets combine lost with battlestar galactica, but it’s not working. And worst of all, it’s not even funny!