Devlin Announces Plans for Stargate Sequels - Page 2 - Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums

Dr. Michael Benjamin · 27th January 2008, 08:41 PM

In my original post I gave my personal opinion about the topic of the original cast from the film versus the SG-1 cast. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I am not saying anyone else is incorrect. I don't believe that there is a right or wrong answer on this issue. Having said that I still hold to the tenets of my previous post. The two O'Neil characters (film and TV) have more to do with the different stages in the life of the character of Jack O'Neil than anything else. In the film, thanks to the friendship he formed with the kids on Abydos as well as the bond (not quite friendship in my opinion) with Daniel, O'Neil came to some sort of resolution about the death of his son Tyler/Charlie. In SG-1 we see a new O'Neil. In the series the character makes the jump from an emotionally vulnerable (thus the so-called brooding) to a wise cracking Air Force colonel. To me the sliver of realism of the film (i.e. it could very well be there is an ancient device spec ops forces go through somewhere under Creek/Cheyenne Mountain that takes them to other planets) is what made it so appealing. Translating that through the series I do not see a logical connection between the personality of the film version of O'Neil to the SG-1 version of O'Neil. This isn't the first example of this situation in Hollywood either. The Donald Sutherland version of Dr. Hawkeye Pierce in the film M*A*S*H was worlds different from the same character portrayed by Alan Alda in the TV series. I loved both the film and TV version of M*A*S*H and I love both Hawkeye characters but I thought Sutherland portrayed a more realistic version of a surgeon in the Korean War. The same issue is here with O'Neil. I didn't say I Andersen did a poor job of portraying O'Neil but that the feel of the character did not seem to be a logical development of O'Neil since we last saw him walk through the Stargate to return home at the end of the film version. This is why I think that Russell should return as O'Neil if and when the sequels are to be made. If Devlin himself does not consider SG-1 to be of any relevance to the Stargate story arc (whatever your opinion of that may be is another issue) then it would be illogical to incorporate a version of O'Neil that is inconsistent with the film version of the character.
However please do not think I am not an SG-1 fan because of what I have said. I watch the reruns on the Sci-Fi Channel everyday and I own the film and SG-1 soundtrack and they are among my favorite CDs. I enjoy watching Andersen crack wise as O'Neil and I have to admit that Amanda Tapping does help keep my eyes glued to the screen. Sadly all we are left with is that very-painful-to-watch Stargate Atlantis. Maybe I am a purist but Atlantis comes across as an updated version of Farscape minus the puppets. Gone is the hint of realism that SG-1 possessed (at least during the early seasons). Incidentally I continue to stand by my opinion on Ben Browder. In my opinion he belongs in those monster/ghost/disaster movies Sci-Fi Channel airs several times a week. I'm sure many of you have seen them; poorly written, terribly acted and with laughable special effects. I have nothing against Browder personally but I think the producers should have looked for a better talent to enter a hit series as a lead character. The producers seemed to want to capture the Farscape fanbase and attract them to SG-1 using Browder/Black's popularity. I have seen a few episodes of Farscape and from my point of view everytime I watch him on the show I see his Farscape character donning an SG-1 uniform. He is very one-dimensional and lacks the charisma Andersen possessed. An excellent move was adding Beau Bridges to the series. His portrayal of General Landry was very good and the producers got it right when they chose him. I only wish they would have made as good a choice when selecting a replacement for Andersen.

Essie · 27th January 2008, 09:14 PM

I completely agree with your opinion in why they employed Browder and Black. You are absolutely correct in that they wanted the Farscape fans - and its also absolutely true that he holds nothing on the screen presence of Richard Dean Anderson. I still wouldn't go as far as to say he can't act - no more or less than many actors in both Stargate incarnations. In my opinion Stargate should have been left alone when Anderson said that he no longer wanted to be a regular cast member - so we're probably looking at the end of season 6 or possibly 7.

As for the two O'Neil characters - the "O'Neill two lls" that Anderson repeated on more than one occasion, I'm sure was meant to be a very clear nod to the fact that they had completely altered the character.

As for what we all think should happen - many people are bound to disagree and have many ideas for the next step. In my opinion - they're always going to upset some fans so probably best to leave well alone. They're never going to do that however - we'll all just have to wait and see.

PTeppic · 28th January 2008, 05:19 AM

DO you not feel that RDA was only acting in the last couple of seasons he was present in, for a joke. Every performance I've been watching seems to be done as a dare, rather than with the proper effort he started out with.

Essie · 28th January 2008, 07:05 PM

I'm not sure he ever took it that seriously - not that the programme really suffered for that. I always felt that he acted almost as if they were happy to pay him to have a laugh he was happy to do it.

Connavar · 29th January 2008, 12:22 PM

Michael Benjamin:

I was just surprised about you not like SG1's O'Niell because RDA has a huge following for that role of his. I understand that cause he made the series less generic with his humor and coolness. He is my favorit SF hero along with Mal from Firefly.

About Browder and Black they were amazing in Farscape one of my absolute fav SF shows but they didnt fit in SG1.

Its funny in Farscape i thought he was as funny and cool as RDA. He did the same for role Farscape well. His mistake was joining SG1 after too many season of RDA and when the writing quality of the show was way down.

If Browder had replaced RDA in season 4 or 5 he would be perfect for the role and do great in series seeing as the series was written much better than S9,10 then.

Dr. Michael Benjamin · 29th January 2008, 06:47 PM

Again I want to emphasize that my posts contain my personal opinions only. I repsect everyone else's point of view on this and I hope that we-as Stargate fans-can look forward to the day when the sequels reach theaters. I did read somewhere that the film was greatly watered down from the originaly concept because MGM wanted to focus the concept on a TV series (SG-1). If this is true I think that the studio did a great disservice to Devlin and Emmerich. I understand that many people were not big on the film but I thought it was excellent. The film probably could have been even better if the studio would have supported the project moreso (i.e. we wouldn't be thirteen years removed from the original only now talking about the second installment being "in the works"). I'd like to know if anyone heard about his.

Connavar · 30th January 2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Michael Benjamin

Again I want to emphasize that my posts contain my personal opinions only. I repsect everyone else's point of view on this and I hope that we-as Stargate fans-can look forward to the day when the sequels reach theaters. I did read somewhere that the film was greatly watered down from the originaly concept because MGM wanted to focus the concept on a TV series (SG-1). If this is true I think that the studio did a great disservice to Devlin and Emmerich. I understand that many people were not big on the film but I thought it was excellent. The film probably could have been even better if the studio would have supported the project moreso (i.e. we wouldn't be thirteen years removed from the original only now talking about the second installment being "in the works"). I'd like to know if anyone heard about his.

I have some respect for the movie creators cause they created a good concept with Stargate and everything but i didnt like the movie itself cause of the actors. Russell didnt do anything for me.

I didnt know about movie being watered down, never heard of that before.

Seeing its hollywood its not surprising.

About sequals reaching the cinema it would be cool even though i prefer another tv show before any movie.

View Poll Results: What direction do you think Stargate should take?
1) A Stargate sequel to the original film version only	5	18.52%
2) A Stargate sequel that combines both the film and tv version	13	48.15%
3) A Stargate sequel that ignores the film version and picks up where SG-1 left off	9	33.33%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

27th January 2008, 08:41 PM	#16 (permalink)
Dr. Michael Benjamin codebreaker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Louisiana Posts: 3	Re: Devlin Announces Plans for Stargate Sequels In my original post I gave my personal opinion about the topic of the original cast from the film versus the SG-1 cast. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I am not saying anyone else is incorrect. I don't believe that there is a right or wrong answer on this issue. Having said that I still hold to the tenets of my previous post. The two O'Neil characters (film and TV) have more to do with the different stages in the life of the character of Jack O'Neil than anything else. In the film, thanks to the friendship he formed with the kids on Abydos as well as the bond (not quite friendship in my opinion) with Daniel, O'Neil came to some sort of resolution about the death of his son Tyler/Charlie. In SG-1 we see a new O'Neil. In the series the character makes the jump from an emotionally vulnerable (thus the so-called brooding) to a wise cracking Air Force colonel. To me the sliver of realism of the film (i.e. it could very well be there is an ancient device spec ops forces go through somewhere under Creek/Cheyenne Mountain that takes them to other planets) is what made it so appealing. Translating that through the series I do not see a logical connection between the personality of the film version of O'Neil to the SG-1 version of O'Neil. This isn't the first example of this situation in Hollywood either. The Donald Sutherland version of Dr. Hawkeye Pierce in the film MASH was worlds different from the same character portrayed by Alan Alda in the TV series. I loved both the film and TV version of MASH and I love both Hawkeye characters but I thought Sutherland portrayed a more realistic version of a surgeon in the Korean War. The same issue is here with O'Neil. I didn't say I Andersen did a poor job of portraying O'Neil but that the feel of the character did not seem to be a logical development of O'Neil since we last saw him walk through the Stargate to return home at the end of the film version. This is why I think that Russell should return as O'Neil if and when the sequels are to be made. If Devlin himself does not consider SG-1 to be of any relevance to the Stargate story arc (whatever your opinion of that may be is another issue) then it would be illogical to incorporate a version of O'Neil that is inconsistent with the film version of the character. However please do not think I am not an SG-1 fan because of what I have said. I watch the reruns on the Sci-Fi Channel everyday and I own the film and SG-1 soundtrack and they are among my favorite CDs. I enjoy watching Andersen crack wise as O'Neil and I have to admit that Amanda Tapping does help keep my eyes glued to the screen. Sadly all we are left with is that very-painful-to-watch Stargate Atlantis. Maybe I am a purist but Atlantis comes across as an updated version of Farscape minus the puppets. Gone is the hint of realism that SG-1 possessed (at least during the early seasons). Incidentally I continue to stand by my opinion on Ben Browder. In my opinion he belongs in those monster/ghost/disaster movies Sci-Fi Channel airs several times a week. I'm sure many of you have seen them; poorly written, terribly acted and with laughable special effects. I have nothing against Browder personally but I think the producers should have looked for a better talent to enter a hit series as a lead character. The producers seemed to want to capture the Farscape fanbase and attract them to SG-1 using Browder/Black's popularity. I have seen a few episodes of Farscape and from my point of view everytime I watch him on the show I see his Farscape character donning an SG-1 uniform. He is very one-dimensional and lacks the charisma Andersen possessed. An excellent move was adding Beau Bridges to the series. His portrayal of General Landry was very good and the producers got it right when they chose him. I only wish they would have made as good a choice when selecting a replacement for Andersen.

27th January 2008, 09:14 PM	#17 (permalink)
Essie Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Essex Posts: 81	Re: Devlin Announces Plans for Stargate Sequels I completely agree with your opinion in why they employed Browder and Black. You are absolutely correct in that they wanted the Farscape fans - and its also absolutely true that he holds nothing on the screen presence of Richard Dean Anderson. I still wouldn't go as far as to say he can't act - no more or less than many actors in both Stargate incarnations. In my opinion Stargate should have been left alone when Anderson said that he no longer wanted to be a regular cast member - so we're probably looking at the end of season 6 or possibly 7. As for the two O'Neil characters - the "O'Neill two lls" that Anderson repeated on more than one occasion, I'm sure was meant to be a very clear nod to the fact that they had completely altered the character. As for what we all think should happen - many people are bound to disagree and have many ideas for the next step. In my opinion - they're always going to upset some fans so probably best to leave well alone. They're never going to do that however - we'll all just have to wait and see.

28th January 2008, 05:19 AM	#18 (permalink)
PTeppic Reetou Diplomatic Corp Join Date: May 2001 Location: North-west UK Posts: 3,073	Re: Devlin Announces Plans for Stargate Sequels DO you not feel that RDA was only acting in the last couple of seasons he was present in, for a joke. Every performance I've been watching seems to be done as a dare, rather than with the proper effort he started out with.

28th January 2008, 07:05 PM	#19 (permalink)
Essie Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Essex Posts: 81	Re: Devlin Announces Plans for Stargate Sequels I'm not sure he ever took it that seriously - not that the programme really suffered for that. I always felt that he acted almost as if they were happy to pay him to have a laugh he was happy to do it.

29th January 2008, 12:22 PM	#20 (permalink)
Connavar Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 3,344	Re: Devlin Announces Plans for Stargate Sequels Michael Benjamin: I was just surprised about you not like SG1's O'Niell because RDA has a huge following for that role of his. I understand that cause he made the series less generic with his humor and coolness. He is my favorit SF hero along with Mal from Firefly. About Browder and Black they were amazing in Farscape one of my absolute fav SF shows but they didnt fit in SG1. Its funny in Farscape i thought he was as funny and cool as RDA. He did the same for role Farscape well. His mistake was joining SG1 after too many season of RDA and when the writing quality of the show was way down. If Browder had replaced RDA in season 4 or 5 he would be perfect for the role and do great in series seeing as the series was written much better than S9,10 then.

29th January 2008, 06:47 PM	#21 (permalink)
Dr. Michael Benjamin codebreaker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Louisiana Posts: 3	Re: Devlin Announces Plans for Stargate Sequels Again I want to emphasize that my posts contain my personal opinions only. I repsect everyone else's point of view on this and I hope that we-as Stargate fans-can look forward to the day when the sequels reach theaters. I did read somewhere that the film was greatly watered down from the originaly concept because MGM wanted to focus the concept on a TV series (SG-1). If this is true I think that the studio did a great disservice to Devlin and Emmerich. I understand that many people were not big on the film but I thought it was excellent. The film probably could have been even better if the studio would have supported the project moreso (i.e. we wouldn't be thirteen years removed from the original only now talking about the second installment being "in the works"). I'd like to know if anyone heard about his.