Hi all,

Does season 1 take off from the original movie, or does it also show the
unearthing of the stargate and formation of the team?
I want to start off with the first season, but is it neccassary to purchase
the movie as well?

Stewart

In article <e8ydnSHEo-k7TWnanZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@saix.net>,
"Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Does season 1 take off from the original movie, or does it also show the
> unearthing of the stargate and formation of the team?
> I want to start off with the first season, but is it neccassary to purchase
> the movie as well?
>
> Stewart

Actually . . . I wouldn't purchase the movie (and I like the movie).
The series continues the movie a year later, but it's so full of
contradictions that you're better off not watching it immediately after
the original.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

Cool, thanks.
I have watched the original movie when it first appeared in theaters, which
(feels like) was ages ago.

"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-1F6DA7.06122703042008@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <e8ydnSHEo-k7TWnanZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@saix.net>,
> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Does season 1 take off from the original movie, or does it also show the
>> unearthing of the stargate and formation of the team?
>> I want to start off with the first season, but is it neccassary to
>> purchase
>> the movie as well?
>>
>> Stewart
>
> Actually . . . I wouldn't purchase the movie (and I like the movie).
> The series continues the movie a year later, but it's so full of
> contradictions that you're better off not watching it immediately after
> the original.
>
> --
> Star Trek 09:
>
> No Shat, No Show.
> http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

In article <c-GdnRpoSoj0n2janZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@saix.net>, "Stewart"
<runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:

> Cool, thanks.
> I have watched the original movie when it first appeared in theaters, which
> (feels like) was ages ago.

It WAS ages ago. According to my book the Stargate movie was released
in 1994, that's nearly 15 years ago. :-)

On Apr 3, 7:42 am, "Stewart" <run...@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Does season 1 take off from the original movie, or does it also show the
> unearthing of the stargate and formation of the team?
> I want to start off with the first season, but is it neccassary to purchase
> the movie as well?
>
> Stewart

Carter has a decent "MacGyver" reference when she sees the DHD for the
first time.

Greg

Well if you watch the film again today you can tell it was ages ago , and
hardly anything happens in the film compared to the modern day stargate,
the film seems to drag a bit





"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:040420080934501058%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <c-GdnRpoSoj0n2janZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@saix.net>, "Stewart"
> <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
>
>> Cool, thanks.
>> I have watched the original movie when it first appeared in theaters,
>> which
>> (feels like) was ages ago.
>
> It WAS ages ago. According to my book the Stargate movie was released
> in 1994, that's nearly 15 years ago. :-)

What's the first season like, any good?
I'm sure it has a whole lot of firsts, like the introduction of Teal'c, etc.

"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:040420080934501058%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <c-GdnRpoSoj0n2janZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@saix.net>, "Stewart"
> <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
>
>> Cool, thanks.
>> I have watched the original movie when it first appeared in theaters,
>> which
>> (feels like) was ages ago.
>
> It WAS ages ago. According to my book the Stargate movie was released
> in 1994, that's nearly 15 years ago. :-)

"Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
news:-rCdnaFukv7RTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...

> What's the first season like, any good?
> I'm sure it has a whole lot of firsts, like the introduction of Teal'c,
> etc.


Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch it
before the series. While some things are changed for the series, it sets it
all up, especially the relationship between Jack and Daniel which becomes so
important in the show. We also get Jack's background, the beginning of his
friendship with Skaara, we meet Daniel's wife Sha're, not to mention the
fact that the series refers to what had happened in the movie and to people
who were in it. So I personally think that the advantages of seeing the
movie outweigh the disadvantages which bother some people, though that does
not include me. Frankly, the movie is worth watching just for Jaye
Davidson's Ra! <g>

As for Season 1, the two-part pilot, "Children of the Gods", remains my
favourite episode of the whole show. Most of the episodes of the season are
very good and the finale, together with S2 opener, is one of the best of the
entire series, IMO. It was all fresh and new back then...

I envy you, I wish I had the whole of SG-1 to watch for the first time.
Well, the first 5 or so seasons anyway. :-)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:65m4cmF2gdjumU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
> news:-rCdnaFukv7RTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
>
>> What's the first season like, any good?
>> I'm sure it has a whole lot of firsts, like the introduction of Teal'c,
>> etc.
>
>
> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch
> it before the series. While some things are changed for the series, it
> sets it all up, especially the relationship between Jack and Daniel which
> becomes so important in the show. We also get Jack's background, the
> beginning of his friendship with Skaara, we meet Daniel's wife Sha're, not
> to mention the fact that the series refers to what had happened in the
> movie and to people who were in it. So I personally think that the
> advantages of seeing the movie outweigh the disadvantages which bother
> some people, though that does not include me. Frankly, the movie is worth
> watching just for Jaye Davidson's Ra! <g>
>
> As for Season 1, the two-part pilot, "Children of the Gods", remains my
> favourite episode of the whole show. Most of the episodes of the season
> are very good and the finale, together with S2 opener, is one of the best
> of the entire series, IMO. It was all fresh and new back then...
>
> I envy you, I wish I had the whole of SG-1 to watch for the first time.
> Well, the first 5 or so seasons anyway. :-)
>
> Eva

Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good idea
as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the Stargate
series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the first mission
and Shar're's father).

I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back and
did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored the TV
series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?

"Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:65m4cmF2gdjumU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
> news:-rCdnaFukv7RTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
>
>> What's the first season like, any good?
>> I'm sure it has a whole lot of firsts, like the introduction of Teal'c,
>> etc.
>
>
> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch
> it before the series. While some things are changed for the series, it
> sets it all up, especially the relationship between Jack and Daniel which
> becomes so important in the show. We also get Jack's background, the
> beginning of his friendship with Skaara, we meet Daniel's wife Sha're, not
> to mention the fact that the series refers to what had happened in the
> movie and to people who were in it. So I personally think that the
> advantages of seeing the movie outweigh the disadvantages which bother
> some people, though that does not include me. Frankly, the movie is worth
> watching just for Jaye Davidson's Ra! <g>
>
> As for Season 1, the two-part pilot, "Children of the Gods", remains my
> favourite episode of the whole show. Most of the episodes of the season
> are very good and the finale, together with S2 opener, is one of the best
> of the entire series, IMO. It was all fresh and new back then...
>
> I envy you, I wish I had the whole of SG-1 to watch for the first time.
> Well, the first 5 or so seasons anyway. :-)

To be honest I can't remember when I first started watching SG-1. I might
even have watched the first season, but whenever it was I can't remember it.
Back then I thought there was only one or two seasons, so didn't look for
anymore. But I have really been enjoying the series (and Atlantis) lately,
and am indeed looking forward to watching the first few seasons!!

>
> Eva
> --
> Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
> http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516
>
> "Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
> delusionals..."

Martin wrote:
> "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message

<snip>

> I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back
> and did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored
> the TV series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?

Yeah... BTW, weren't there plans to do just that?

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:eoCdnbQiTL4qcmjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:65m4cmF2gdjumU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:-rCdnaFukv7RTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
>>
>>> What's the first season like, any good?
>>> I'm sure it has a whole lot of firsts, like the introduction of Teal'c,
>>> etc.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch
>> it before the series. While some things are changed for the series, it
>> sets it all up, especially the relationship between Jack and Daniel which
>> becomes so important in the show. We also get Jack's background, the
>> beginning of his friendship with Skaara, we meet Daniel's wife Sha're,
>> not to mention the fact that the series refers to what had happened in
>> the movie and to people who were in it. So I personally think that the
>> advantages of seeing the movie outweigh the disadvantages which bother
>> some people, though that does not include me. Frankly, the movie is
>> worth watching just for Jaye Davidson's Ra! <g>
>>
>> As for Season 1, the two-part pilot, "Children of the Gods", remains my
>> favourite episode of the whole show. Most of the episodes of the season
>> are very good and the finale, together with S2 opener, is one of the best
>> of the entire series, IMO. It was all fresh and new back then...
>>
>> I envy you, I wish I had the whole of SG-1 to watch for the first time.
>> Well, the first 5 or so seasons anyway. :-)
>>
>> Eva
>
> Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good
> idea as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the
> Stargate series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the first
> mission and Shar're's father).
>
> I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back and
> did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored the TV
> series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?

I heard there was plans to do a sequel, which would ignore everything that
took place in the TV series.
Think I sure it on the Wiki, though not sure about that...

"Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
news:Go-dnUTMlbvP6WvanZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@saix.net...
>
> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eoCdnbQiTL4qcmjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:65m4cmF2gdjumU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
>>> news:-rCdnaFukv7RTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
>>>
>>>> What's the first season like, any good?
>>>> I'm sure it has a whole lot of firsts, like the introduction of Teal'c,
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch
>>> it before the series. While some things are changed for the series, it
>>> sets it all up, especially the relationship between Jack and Daniel
>>> which becomes so important in the show. We also get Jack's background,
>>> the beginning of his friendship with Skaara, we meet Daniel's wife
>>> Sha're, not to mention the fact that the series refers to what had
>>> happened in the movie and to people who were in it. So I personally
>>> think that the advantages of seeing the movie outweigh the disadvantages
>>> which bother some people, though that does not include me. Frankly, the
>>> movie is worth watching just for Jaye Davidson's Ra! <g>
>>>
>>> As for Season 1, the two-part pilot, "Children of the Gods", remains my
>>> favourite episode of the whole show. Most of the episodes of the season
>>> are very good and the finale, together with S2 opener, is one of the
>>> best of the entire series, IMO. It was all fresh and new back then...
>>>
>>> I envy you, I wish I had the whole of SG-1 to watch for the first time.
>>> Well, the first 5 or so seasons anyway. :-)
>>>
>>> Eva
>>
>> Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good
>> idea as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the
>> Stargate series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the
>> first mission and Shar're's father).
>>
>> I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back and
>> did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored the TV
>> series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?
>
> I heard there was plans to do a sequel, which would ignore everything that
> took place in the TV series.
> Think I sure it on the Wiki, though not sure about that...


There has been talk about it for a while I think. I'm not so sure it would
work though. The Star Trek movies worked because it used the original casts
and plot lines. I think to try to unwing over 10 years of the Stargate world
might be too difficult. OK for non Stargate fans but not for the TV series
fans.

In article <47f65fdc$0$14344$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Martin wrote:
> > "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back
> > and did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored
> > the TV series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?
>
> Yeah... BTW, weren't there plans to do just that?

Yep, there were ... hopefully that idea has been dropped. It was really
just a case of the original guys seeing how much money was being made
with Stargate and wanting to cash in again.

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:2PydnYxwWMqXJmvanZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
> news:Go-dnUTMlbvP6WvanZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@saix.net...
>>
>> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:eoCdnbQiTL4qcmjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:65m4cmF2gdjumU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
>>>> news:-rCdnaFukv7RTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
>>>>
>>>>> What's the first season like, any good?
>>>>> I'm sure it has a whole lot of firsts, like the introduction of
>>>>> Teal'c, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to
>>>> watch it before the series. While some things are changed for the
>>>> series, it sets it all up, especially the relationship between Jack and
>>>> Daniel which becomes so important in the show. We also get Jack's
>>>> background, the beginning of his friendship with Skaara, we meet
>>>> Daniel's wife Sha're, not to mention the fact that the series refers to
>>>> what had happened in the movie and to people who were in it. So I
>>>> personally think that the advantages of seeing the movie outweigh the
>>>> disadvantages which bother some people, though that does not include
>>>> me. Frankly, the movie is worth watching just for Jaye Davidson's Ra!
>>>> <g>
>>>>
>>>> As for Season 1, the two-part pilot, "Children of the Gods", remains my
>>>> favourite episode of the whole show. Most of the episodes of the season
>>>> are very good and the finale, together with S2 opener, is one of the
>>>> best of the entire series, IMO. It was all fresh and new back then...
>>>>
>>>> I envy you, I wish I had the whole of SG-1 to watch for the first time.
>>>> Well, the first 5 or so seasons anyway. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Eva
>>>
>>> Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good
>>> idea as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the
>>> Stargate series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the
>>> first mission and Shar're's father).
>>>
>>> I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back
>>> and did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored the
>>> TV series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?
>>
>> I heard there was plans to do a sequel, which would ignore everything
>> that took place in the TV series.
>> Think I sure it on the Wiki, though not sure about that...
>
>
> There has been talk about it for a while I think. I'm not so sure it would
> work though. The Star Trek movies worked because it used the original
> casts and plot lines. I think to try to unwing over 10 years of the
> Stargate world might be too difficult. OK for non Stargate fans but not
> for the TV series fans.

Yeah you're probably right about that.
So then do think the TV cast would be interested in doing a movie.
It seems to be the thing to do these days. Having a TV show and doing big
screen films at the same time.

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:eoCdnbQiTL4qcmjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...

<snip>

> Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good
> idea as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the
> Stargate series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the first
> mission and Shar're's father).
>
> I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back and
> did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored the TV
> series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?

He made a statement about two years (?) ago at a con, I think, where he'd
said he was in talks about making another Stargate movie which would ignore
the TV show - there was a thread about this at the time. Apparently, that
was always their plan to make a sequel some years after the first movie's
events. I haven't heard anything since then. It would be very strange to
watch a movie which would ignore 10 years of activities at SGC, as we know
them, but I would still want to see the movie just for the heck of it.
However, I can't see why would any studio want to finance such a movie, to
be honest.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
news:rKKdnQHxyYAdo2ranZ2dnUVZ8hwAAAAA@saix.net...
>
> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
> news:2PydnYxwWMqXJmvanZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message

<snip>

>>> I heard there was plans to do a sequel, which would ignore everything
>>> that took place in the TV series.
>>> Think I sure it on the Wiki, though not sure about that...
>>
>>
>> There has been talk about it for a while I think. I'm not so sure it
>> would work though. The Star Trek movies worked because it used the
>> original casts and plot lines. I think to try to unwing over 10 years of
>> the Stargate world might be too difficult. OK for non Stargate fans but
>> not for the TV series fans.
>
> Yeah you're probably right about that.
> So then do think the TV cast would be interested in doing a movie.
> It seems to be the thing to do these days. Having a TV show and doing big
> screen films at the same time.

After SG-1 was cancelled, they made 2 movies, both going straight to DVD
(although the first was also shown on TV in the UK, not sure about the US).
"The Ark of Truth" is out now and basically finishes the series off.
"Continuum" should be released later this year, it has already been filmed.
After that, who knows? I guess if the movies do financially well on DVD
they may make others but I can't see them making a Stargate (SG-1) movie for
a cinema release, it is doubtful it would pay for itself, never mind make
some profit. The mentioned "Serenity" shows that.

As for an Atlantis movie, doesn't bear to think about, really. <g> They
would have to get in writers who care about the writing more than the
current lot does, for starters. IMO.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
news:rKKdnQHxyYAdo2ranZ2dnUVZ8hwAAAAA@saix.net...
>
> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
> news:2PydnYxwWMqXJmvanZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:Go-dnUTMlbvP6WvanZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@saix.net...
>>>
>>> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eoCdnbQiTL4qcmjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:65m4cmF2gdjumU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
>>>>> news:-rCdnaFukv7RTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the first season like, any good?
>>>>>> I'm sure it has a whole lot of firsts, like the introduction of
>>>>>> Teal'c, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to
>>>>> watch it before the series. While some things are changed for the
>>>>> series, it sets it all up, especially the relationship between Jack
>>>>> and Daniel which becomes so important in the show. We also get Jack's
>>>>> background, the beginning of his friendship with Skaara, we meet
>>>>> Daniel's wife Sha're, not to mention the fact that the series refers
>>>>> to what had happened in the movie and to people who were in it. So I
>>>>> personally think that the advantages of seeing the movie outweigh the
>>>>> disadvantages which bother some people, though that does not include
>>>>> me. Frankly, the movie is worth watching just for Jaye Davidson's Ra!
>>>>> <g>
>>>>>
>>>>> As for Season 1, the two-part pilot, "Children of the Gods", remains
>>>>> my favourite episode of the whole show. Most of the episodes of the
>>>>> season are very good and the finale, together with S2 opener, is one
>>>>> of the best of the entire series, IMO. It was all fresh and new back
>>>>> then...
>>>>>
>>>>> I envy you, I wish I had the whole of SG-1 to watch for the first
>>>>> time. Well, the first 5 or so seasons anyway. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Eva
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good
>>>> idea as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the
>>>> Stargate series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the
>>>> first mission and Shar're's father).
>>>>
>>>> I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back
>>>> and did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored the
>>>> TV series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?
>>>
>>> I heard there was plans to do a sequel, which would ignore everything
>>> that took place in the TV series.
>>> Think I sure it on the Wiki, though not sure about that...
>>
>>
>> There has been talk about it for a while I think. I'm not so sure it
>> would work though. The Star Trek movies worked because it used the
>> original casts and plot lines. I think to try to unwing over 10 years of
>> the Stargate world might be too difficult. OK for non Stargate fans but
>> not for the TV series fans.
>
> Yeah you're probably right about that.
> So then do think the TV cast would be interested in doing a movie.
> It seems to be the thing to do these days. Having a TV show and doing big
> screen films at the same time.

You would need a few "big stars" to come onbaord to sell the movie. None of
the current SG/SGA family are "big names" and a worldwide movie just
wouldn't sell I don't think. Well it might, but I don't think the studios
would go for it.

But I think the straight to DVD releases might well help the series go on
for a bit longer. And who knows in the future?

Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch it
> before the series.

Seriously? I would not recommend the movie to anybody, unless I really
hated them. Especially if they are fans of the series.

"Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:050420080534597381%cmn-nospam@comcast.net...
> Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch
>> it
>> before the series.
>
> Seriously? I would not recommend the movie to anybody, unless I really
> hated them. Especially if they are fans of the series.


LOL! Well, there you have it, EMMV. Despite the failings of the movie, I do
think it helps to set the background for the show. Of course, you don't
need to see it to understand what's going on in the show, I guess Stewart
will have to decide for himself.

So, why do you hate the movie?

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
news:FbedncBprdcdo2vanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@saix.net...
>
> "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message

<snip>

>> I envy you, I wish I had the whole of SG-1 to watch for the first time.
>> Well, the first 5 or so seasons anyway. :-)
>
> To be honest I can't remember when I first started watching SG-1. I might
> even have watched the first season, but whenever it was I can't remember
> it.
> Back then I thought there was only one or two seasons, so didn't look for
> anymore. But I have really been enjoying the series (and Atlantis) lately,
> and am indeed looking forward to watching the first few seasons!!


Well, have fun! :-)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:65p449F2h1c8eU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:050420080534597381%cmn-nospam@comcast.net...
>> Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch
>>> it
>>> before the series.
>>
>> Seriously? I would not recommend the movie to anybody, unless I really
>> hated them. Especially if they are fans of the series.
>
>
> LOL! Well, there you have it, EMMV. Despite the failings of the movie, I
> do think it helps to set the background for the show. Of course, you
> don't need to see it to understand what's going on in the show, I guess
> Stewart will have to decide for himself.
>
> So, why do you hate the movie?
>
> Eva

I don't think the movie was that bad. It could have been better, but then
again the TV series had a chance to do things that the movie never did. I
think RDA did a better job of O'Neill than Kurt Russell did.

I think to really follow the early seasons of SG1 the movie is really
helpful, especially with the links back to the planet that occur in the TV
show.

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:00:27 +0100, in alt.tv.stargate-sg1, "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

...
... "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
... news:65p449F2h1c8eU1@mid.individual.net...
... > "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
... > news:050420080534597381%cmn-nospam@comcast.net...
... >> Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
... >>
... >>> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch
... >>> it
... >>> before the series.
... >>
... >> Seriously? I would not recommend the movie to anybody, unless I really
... >> hated them. Especially if they are fans of the series.
... >
... >
... > LOL! Well, there you have it, EMMV. Despite the failings of the movie, I
... > do think it helps to set the background for the show. Of course, you
... > don't need to see it to understand what's going on in the show, I guess
... > Stewart will have to decide for himself.
... >
... > So, why do you hate the movie?
... >
... > Eva
...
... I don't think the movie was that bad. It could have been better, but then
... again the TV series had a chance to do things that the movie never did. I
... think RDA did a better job of O'Neill than Kurt Russell did.

But Spader was a better Daniel. Much better!

... I think to really follow the early seasons of SG1 the movie is really
... helpful, especially with the links back to the planet that occur in the TV
... show.
...

=====
It sounds much better in French, but then, everything does.

"Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:65p449F2h1c8eU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:050420080534597381%cmn-nospam@comcast.net...
>> Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch
>>> it
>>> before the series.
>>
>> Seriously? I would not recommend the movie to anybody, unless I really
>> hated them. Especially if they are fans of the series.
>
>
> LOL! Well, there you have it, EMMV. Despite the failings of the movie, I
> do think it helps to set the background for the show. Of course, you
> don't need to see it to understand what's going on in the show, I guess
> Stewart will have to decide for himself.

I think I will get it as it sets up the whole series.
If you're new to Stargate and haven't seen the movie, you'll have missed a
few things like the finding of the gate, etc.


> So, why do you hate the movie?
>
> Eva
> --
> Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
> http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516
>
> "Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
> delusionals..."

I liked the movie as well as the series......I believe that each stands
on its own.However,I personally
liked Michael Shank's portrayal of Daniel Jackson better.I thought James
Spader's rendition was a little too forced and his acting a little
"wooden" and hollow.To each his/her own,I guess.
I also think that the production values of SHOWTIME's production and
distribution of the series was a lot better (initial production company)
overall than when MGM/Universal/SCI-FI Channel took over.They seemed to
put a little more attention and detail into it.However,I was glad to see
the series continue no matter who did it.

In article <ok9fv3tn0fujhdmjeligqa7esq3728uotq@4ax.com>, Magda <> wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:00:27 +0100, in alt.tv.stargate-sg1, "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com>
>arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
>
> ...
> ... "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> ... news:65p449F2h1c8eU1@mid.individual.net...
> ... > "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
> ... > news:050420080534597381%cmn-nospam@comcast.net...
> ... >> Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> ... >>
> ... >>> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch
> ... >>> it
> ... >>> before the series.
> ... >>
> ... >> Seriously? I would not recommend the movie to anybody, unless I really
> ... >> hated them. Especially if they are fans of the series.
> ... >
> ... >
> ... > LOL! Well, there you have it, EMMV. Despite the failings of the movie, I
> ... > do think it helps to set the background for the show. Of course, you
> ... > don't need to see it to understand what's going on in the show, I guess
> ... > Stewart will have to decide for himself.
> ... >
> ... > So, why do you hate the movie?
> ... >
> ... > Eva
> ...
> ... I don't think the movie was that bad. It could have been better, but then
> ... again the TV series had a chance to do things that the movie never did. I
> ... think RDA did a better job of O'Neill than Kurt Russell did.
>
>But Spader was a better Daniel. Much better!

But Shanks was cuter (back then).

Jill

> ... I think to really follow the early seasons of SG1 the movie is really
> ... helpful, especially with the links back to the planet that occur in the TV
> ... show.
> ...
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
jill@tuells.org

In article <c-GdnRpoSoj0n2janZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@saix.net>,
runner@tiscal.co.za says...
> Cool, thanks.
> I have watched the original movie when it first appeared in theaters, which
> (feels like) was ages ago.

Of course how much it contradicts things is a matter of opnion. I don't
think it does to any large degree.

In article <MPG.22631f4bc6e72e498bd21@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B
<xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:

> In article <c-GdnRpoSoj0n2janZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@saix.net>,
> runner@tiscal.co.za says...
> > Cool, thanks.
> > I have watched the original movie when it first appeared in theaters, which
> > (feels like) was ages ago.
>
> Of course how much it contradicts things is a matter of opnion. I don't
> think it does to any large degree.

Jack is a completely different character for a start.

"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:070420080916268824%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <MPG.22631f4bc6e72e498bd21@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B
> <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <c-GdnRpoSoj0n2janZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@saix.net>,
>> runner@tiscal.co.za says...
>> > Cool, thanks.
>> > I have watched the original movie when it first appeared in theaters,
>> > which
>> > (feels like) was ages ago.
>>
>> Of course how much it contradicts things is a matter of opnion. I don't
>> think it does to any large degree.
>
> Jack is a completely different character for a start.

Well in Children of the Gods he's still quite a "down character" compared to
the wise cracking O'Neill of later on. It was said that he could never play
the character the way Kurt Russell did. I remember him talking about it on
one of the DVD extras. They put in that episode where they find that crystal
stuff that creates a replica of his son (and we see his wife). That was
supposed to be some sort of closure on that part of his life. Take it as you
will, they just needed to find an excuse to change the character.

In article <6rKdna_k3OrX02TanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>,
"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote:

> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:070420080916268824%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> > In article <MPG.22631f4bc6e72e498bd21@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B
> > <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <c-GdnRpoSoj0n2janZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@saix.net>,
> >> runner@tiscal.co.za says...
> >> > Cool, thanks.
> >> > I have watched the original movie when it first appeared in theaters,
> >> > which
> >> > (feels like) was ages ago.
> >>
> >> Of course how much it contradicts things is a matter of opnion. I don't
> >> think it does to any large degree.
> >
> > Jack is a completely different character for a start.
>
> Well in Children of the Gods he's still quite a "down character" compared to
> the wise cracking O'Neill of later on. It was said that he could never play
> the character the way Kurt Russell did. I remember him talking about it on
> one of the DVD extras. They put in that episode where they find that crystal
> stuff that creates a replica of his son (and we see his wife). That was
> supposed to be some sort of closure on that part of his life. Take it as you
> will, they just needed to find an excuse to change the character.

That was the end for the character of his ex-wife too, which was sort of
odd, since she now had to know enough about what he was doing that you'd
think it would have brought them closer.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:6rKdna_k3OrX02TanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:070420080916268824%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>> In article <MPG.22631f4bc6e72e498bd21@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B

<snip>

>>> Of course how much it contradicts things is a matter of opnion. I don't
>>> think it does to any large degree.
>>
>> Jack is a completely different character for a start.
>
> Well in Children of the Gods he's still quite a "down character" compared
> to the wise cracking O'Neill of later on. It was said that he could never
> play the character the way Kurt Russell did. I remember him talking about
> it on one of the DVD extras. They put in that episode where they find that
> crystal stuff that creates a replica of his son (and we see his wife).
> That was supposed to be some sort of closure on that part of his life.
> Take it as you will, they just needed to find an excuse to change the
> character.


We don't know what Jack was like before Charlie died, do we?* In the movie,
we meet Jack who is suicidal because he blames himself for Charlie's death.
So it is perfectly plausible that the series Jack was also the movie Jack; I
certainly have never had a problem with that. Saying he was a completely
different character is not accurate, IMO, because we do not know what his
character was like in the movie. We know him as a parent traumatised by his
son's death, any normality goes out of the window so we can't judge him on
that.

(*Apart from the later addition in the series.)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:65u0ckF2i6kieU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
> news:6rKdna_k3OrX02TanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
>> news:070420080916268824%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>>> In article <MPG.22631f4bc6e72e498bd21@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Of course how much it contradicts things is a matter of opnion. I don't
>>>> think it does to any large degree.
>>>
>>> Jack is a completely different character for a start.
>>
>> Well in Children of the Gods he's still quite a "down character" compared
>> to the wise cracking O'Neill of later on. It was said that he could never
>> play the character the way Kurt Russell did. I remember him talking about
>> it on one of the DVD extras. They put in that episode where they find
>> that crystal stuff that creates a replica of his son (and we see his
>> wife). That was supposed to be some sort of closure on that part of his
>> life. Take it as you will, they just needed to find an excuse to change
>> the character.
>
>
> We don't know what Jack was like before Charlie died, do we?* In the
> movie, we meet Jack who is suicidal because he blames himself for
> Charlie's death. So it is perfectly plausible that the series Jack was
> also the movie Jack; I certainly have never had a problem with that.
> Saying he was a completely different character is not accurate, IMO,
> because we do not know what his character was like in the movie. We know
> him as a parent traumatised by his son's death, any normality goes out of
> the window so we can't judge him on that.
>
> (*Apart from the later addition in the series.)
>
> Eva

Do we don't. It's quite possible he was a jokey character. Point was they
wanted some excuse in the series to explain such a character change. If you
watch obe of the RDA interviews he actually brings this up.

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:BumdnaOmmeAzfmTanZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:65u0ckF2i6kieU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:6rKdna_k3OrX02TanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
>>> news:070420080916268824%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>>>> In article <MPG.22631f4bc6e72e498bd21@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Of course how much it contradicts things is a matter of opnion. I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> think it does to any large degree.
>>>>
>>>> Jack is a completely different character for a start.
>>>
>>> Well in Children of the Gods he's still quite a "down character"
>>> compared to the wise cracking O'Neill of later on. It was said that he
>>> could never play the character the way Kurt Russell did. I remember him
>>> talking about it on one of the DVD extras. They put in that episode
>>> where they find that crystal stuff that creates a replica of his son
>>> (and we see his wife). That was supposed to be some sort of closure on
>>> that part of his life. Take it as you will, they just needed to find an
>>> excuse to change the character.
>>
>>
>> We don't know what Jack was like before Charlie died, do we?* In the
>> movie, we meet Jack who is suicidal because he blames himself for
>> Charlie's death. So it is perfectly plausible that the series Jack was
>> also the movie Jack; I certainly have never had a problem with that.
>> Saying he was a completely different character is not accurate, IMO,
>> because we do not know what his character was like in the movie. We know
>> him as a parent traumatised by his son's death, any normality goes out of
>> the window so we can't judge him on that.
>>
>> (*Apart from the later addition in the series.)
>>
>> Eva
>
> Do we don't. It's quite possible he was a jokey character. Point was they
> wanted some excuse in the series to explain such a character change. If
> you watch obe of the RDA interviews he actually brings this up.


Oh, I am aware of RDA's reasons and conditions of taking on the role of
Jack, and I agree with them. I was merely concentrating on the development
of Jack purely from the story's point of view, not taking anything else into
consideration.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

In article <47f5ad2c$0$13295$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, slartibartfastsenior@theendoftheuniverse.com says...
> Well if you watch the film again today you can tell it was ages ago , and
> hardly anything happens in the film compared to the modern day stargate,
> the film seems to drag a bit
>

Perhaps that is why they are doing a remix of it.

In article <070420080916268824%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
anybody@anywhere-anytime.com says...
> In article <MPG.22631f4bc6e72e498bd21@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B
> <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <c-GdnRpoSoj0n2janZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@saix.net>,
> > runner@tiscal.co.za says...
> > > Cool, thanks.
> > > I have watched the original movie when it first appeared in theaters, which
> > > (feels like) was ages ago.
> >
> > Of course how much it contradicts things is a matter of opnion. I don't
> > think it does to any large degree.
>
> Jack is a completely different character for a start.

Not really. It isn't until much later we see him for the dumb joker he
is, but the only comparison should be two hours not the series.

In article <65u0ckF2i6kieU1@mid.individual.net>,
eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
> Saying he was a completely
> different character is not accurate, IMO, because we do not know what his
> character was like in the movie. We know him as a parent traumatised by his
> son's death, any normality goes out of the window so we can't judge him on
> that.
>
>

We also see the character for a fairly small amount of time, not enough
time for a fair comparison.

In article <eoCdnbQiTL4qcmjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>,
nonhere@nonhere.com says...
> I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back and
> did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored the TV
> series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?
>
>

Very odd.

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:eoCdnbQiTL4qcmjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:65m4cmF2gdjumU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:-rCdnaFukv7RTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
>>
>>> What's the first season like, any good?
>>> I'm sure it has a whole lot of firsts, like the introduction of Teal'c,
>>> etc.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen the movie to watch
>> it before the series. While some things are changed for the series, it
>> sets it all up, especially the relationship between Jack and Daniel which
>> becomes so important in the show. We also get Jack's background, the
>> beginning of his friendship with Skaara, we meet Daniel's wife Sha're,
>> not to mention the fact that the series refers to what had happened in
>> the movie and to people who were in it. So I personally think that the
>> advantages of seeing the movie outweigh the disadvantages which bother
>> some people, though that does not include me. Frankly, the movie is
>> worth watching just for Jaye Davidson's Ra! <g>
>>
>> As for Season 1, the two-part pilot, "Children of the Gods", remains my
>> favourite episode of the whole show. Most of the episodes of the season
>> are very good and the finale, together with S2 opener, is one of the best
>> of the entire series, IMO. It was all fresh and new back then...
>>
>> I envy you, I wish I had the whole of SG-1 to watch for the first time.
>> Well, the first 5 or so seasons anyway. :-)
>>
>> Eva
>
> Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good
> idea as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the
> Stargate series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the first
> mission and Shar're's father).
Actually the only people to appear in both movie and original were Skara and
Shar're's father.


>
> I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back and
> did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored the TV
> series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?
>

GeekBoy wrote:
>
(snippage)
>>
>> Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good
>> idea as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the
>> Stargate series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the
>> first mission and Shar're's father).
> Actually the only people to appear in both movie and original were Skara
> and Shar're's father.
quibble:
The only **Actors** playing....(etc...)
However the characters of Feretti/Ferretti and Kawalsky were both in the
movie too.
>


--Leigh

"Leigh Claffey" <lclaffey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tbWdnaZWUawBQ57VnZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@giganews.com ...
> GeekBoy wrote:
>>
> (snippage)
>>>
>>> Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good
>>> idea as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the
>>> Stargate series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the
>>> first mission and Shar're's father).
>> Actually the only people to appear in both movie and original were Skara
>> and Shar're's father.
> quibble:
> The only **Actors** playing....(etc...)
> However the characters of Feretti/Ferretti and Kawalsky were both in the
> movie too.
>>
>
>
> --Leigh

The bloke that played the slime ball in Atlantis for a couple of episodes
(he did the episodes with the substance that made everyone love him and the
personal force shield thing) and he played a scientist in the movie.

"Leigh Claffey" <lclaffey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tbWdnaZWUawBQ57VnZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@giganews.com ...
> GeekBoy wrote:
>>
> (snippage)
>>>
>>> Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good
>>> idea as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the
>>> Stargate series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the
>>> first mission and Shar're's father).
>> Actually the only people to appear in both movie and original were Skara
>> and Shar're's father.
> quibble:
> The only **Actors** playing....(etc...)
> However the characters of Feretti/Ferretti and Kawalsky were both in the
> movie too.

Jack, Jack's wife Sara, Charlie (kind of), Daniel, Sha're, Sha're's father,
Skaara, Ferretti, Kowalski, Catherine. Have I forgotten someone?

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:66lsk8F2kof2gU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Leigh Claffey" <lclaffey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:tbWdnaZWUawBQ57VnZ2dnUVZ_vTinZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> GeekBoy wrote:
>>>
>> (snippage)
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Children of the Gods was excellent and yes the movie is a good
>>>> idea as there are a lot of characters that re-appear throughout the
>>>> Stargate series (O'Neill's fellow soldiers that went with him on the
>>>> first mission and Shar're's father).
>>> Actually the only people to appear in both movie and original were Skara
>>> and Shar're's father.
>> quibble:
>> The only **Actors** playing....(etc...)
>> However the characters of Feretti/Ferretti and Kawalsky were both in the
>> movie too.
>
> Jack, Jack's wife Sara, Charlie (kind of), Daniel, Sha're, Sha're's
> father, Skaara, Ferretti, Kowalski, Catherine. Have I forgotten someone?
>
> Eva

Wasn't Charlie called something else in the movie? I think you forgot Ra as
well, although we don't see his face in the TV series do we.

"Martin" <nonhere@nonhere.com> wrote in message
news:0NKdnZvYeZkj6pvV4p2dnAA@bt.com...
>
> "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message

<snip>

>> Jack, Jack's wife Sara, Charlie (kind of), Daniel, Sha're, Sha're's
>> father, Skaara, Ferretti, Kowalski, Catherine. Have I forgotten someone?
>
> Wasn't Charlie called something else in the movie? I think you forgot Ra
> as well, although we don't see his face in the TV series do we.

Yeah, he was, although I can't remember now. Yes, Ra should be on the list,
too.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:050420081349244713%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <47f65fdc$0$14344$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
> Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>
>> Martin wrote:
>> > "Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > I've often wondered what it would be like if Roland Emerich went back
>> > and did do a sequel movie but based on the first movie and ignored
>> > the TV series. Wouldn't that just feel really odd?
>>
>> Yeah... BTW, weren't there plans to do just that?
>
> Yep, there were ... hopefully that idea has been dropped. It was really
> just a case of the original guys seeing how much money was being made
> with Stargate and wanting to cash in again.


I am in the middle of watching "10,000 BC". I stayed away from any spoilers
so I didn't know what to expect but having reached a certain point of the
movie, it seems that RE just cannot lay his Stargate movie to rest. One
thing I did *not* expect from this movie was its genre, LOL! I mean,
seriously, this is too much even from someone like Emmerich. (Can't say more
here without adding some spoiler warning.)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

Eva wrote:

> I am in the middle of watching "10,000 BC". I stayed away from any
> spoilers so I didn't know what to expect but having reached a certain
> point of the movie, it seems that RE just cannot lay his Stargate movie
> to rest. One thing I did *not* expect from this movie was its genre,
> LOL! I mean, seriously, this is too much even from someone like
> Emmerich. (Can't say more here without adding some spoiler warning.)


I got half-way through it (got it from a torrent site) and felt I had
wasted my time downloading it.

"Bucket List" was better ;-)

"Justin Kase" <no@way.jose.ca> wrote in message
news:4822d625$0$31721$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Eva wrote:
>
>> I am in the middle of watching "10,000 BC". I stayed away from any
>> spoilers so I didn't know what to expect but having reached a certain
>> point of the movie, it seems that RE just cannot lay his Stargate movie
>> to rest. One thing I did *not* expect from this movie was its genre,
>> LOL! I mean, seriously, this is too much even from someone like
>> Emmerich. (Can't say more here without adding some spoiler warning.)
>
>
> I got half-way through it (got it from a torrent site) and felt I had
> wasted my time downloading it.


SPOILER SPACE FOR "10,000 BC" below, not that I think anyone would care,
considering <g>


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


The same here but I did want to see it out of curiosity. It was not very
engaging and I kept wondering how close to the truth something like this
could be written (not that I expected much realism, you understand!), loved
the view of the river with the ships but then Emmerich totally lost me at
mammoths helping to build a pyramid in (hot!) desert and the mutterings
about the 'god' not being human and coming from the stars. He sealed it off
with the constellation of Orion - Graham Hancock et al *must* be proud. I
really should have known, LOL, 10,000 BC = 12,000 BC. I would like to know
what exactly Emmerich was trying to do with this film. So many people (not
me) say Stargate was rubbish but, compared to this, it's a masterpiece.

> "Bucket List" was better ;-)

Never heard of that but I take it you are not recommending it either? :-)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Eva" <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:68gabsF2raq4hU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Justin Kase" <no@way.jose.ca> wrote in message
> news:4822d625$0$31721$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Eva wrote:
>>
>>> I am in the middle of watching "10,000 BC". I stayed away from any
>>> spoilers so I didn't know what to expect but having reached a certain
>>> point of the movie, it seems that RE just cannot lay his Stargate movie
>>> to rest. One thing I did *not* expect from this movie was its genre,
>>> LOL! I mean, seriously, this is too much even from someone like
>>> Emmerich. (Can't say more here without adding some spoiler warning.)
>>
>>
>> I got half-way through it (got it from a torrent site) and felt I had
>> wasted my time downloading it.
>
>
> SPOILER SPACE FOR "10,000 BC" below, not that I think anyone would care,
> considering <g>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> The same here but I did want to see it out of curiosity. It was not very
> engaging and I kept wondering how close to the truth something like this
> could be written (not that I expected much realism, you understand!),
> loved the view of the river with the ships but then Emmerich totally lost
> me at mammoths helping to build a pyramid in (hot!) desert and the
> mutterings about the 'god' not being human and coming from the stars. He
> sealed it off with the constellation of Orion - Graham Hancock et al
> *must* be proud. I really should have known, LOL, 10,000 BC = 12,000 BC.

Oops, that was upposed to be 12,000 years ago.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

Eva wrote:
> "Justin Kase" <no@way.jose.ca> wrote in message

>
>> "Bucket List" was better ;-)
>
> Never heard of that but I take it you are not recommending it either? :-)

On the contrary. Jack Nickleson and Morgan Freeman are -excellent-
together. Who woulda thought of such a pairing? I won't go into the
story line, but look for a private email, Eva.

Personally, *I* think that Louis Gossett, Jr was a -great- choice as a
leader of the Jaffa rebel army. Unfortunately, I don't think his acting
in that role was the 'peak' of his career.

Just my opinion, Justin Kase anyone cares ;-)

"Justin Kase" <no@way.jose.ca> wrote in message
news:48230d4b$0$7051$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Eva wrote:
>> "Justin Kase" <no@way.jose.ca> wrote in message
>
>>
>>> "Bucket List" was better ;-)
>>
>> Never heard of that but I take it you are not recommending it either? :-)
>
> On the contrary. Jack Nickleson and Morgan Freeman are -excellent-
> together. Who woulda thought of such a pairing? I won't go into the
> story line, but look for a private email, Eva.

Oh, is it a new movie? I think I vaguely remember catching a preview.
Morgan Freeman is always watchable so I may bother.

> Personally, *I* think that Louis Gossett, Jr was a -great- choice as a
> leader of the Jaffa rebel army. Unfortunately, I don't think his acting
> in that role was the 'peak' of his career.
>
> Just my opinion, Justin Kase anyone cares ;-)

I was not fond of him at all. But that's probably mainly due to the fact
that I found the whole Jaffa arc boring and some of the side characters very
annoying and talent-free, especially the whining, pouting Rya'c and the
wooden and also pouting Ishtar.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

Eva wrote:
> "Justin Kase" <no@way.jose.ca> wrote in message
> news:4822d625$0$31721$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Eva wrote:
>>
>>> I am in the middle of watching "10,000 BC". I stayed away from any
>>> spoilers so I didn't know what to expect but having reached a certain
>>> point of the movie, it seems that RE just cannot lay his Stargate movie
>>> to rest. One thing I did *not* expect from this movie was its genre,
>>> LOL! I mean, seriously, this is too much even from someone like
>>> Emmerich. (Can't say more here without adding some spoiler warning.)
>>
>>
>> I got half-way through it (got it from a torrent site) and felt I had
>> wasted my time downloading it.
>
>
> SPOILER SPACE FOR "10,000 BC" below, not that I think anyone would care,
> considering <g>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> The same here but I did want to see it out of curiosity. It was not very
> engaging and I kept wondering how close to the truth something like this
> could be written (not that I expected much realism, you understand!),
> loved the view of the river with the ships but then Emmerich totally
> lost me at mammoths helping to build a pyramid in (hot!) desert and the
> mutterings about the 'god' not being human and coming from the stars. He
> sealed it off with the constellation of Orion - Graham Hancock et al
> *must* be proud. I really should have known, LOL, 10,000 BC = 12,000 BC.
> I would like to know what exactly Emmerich was trying to do with this
> film. So many people (not me) say Stargate was rubbish but, compared to
> this, it's a masterpiece.
>


Meh - the eye-candy was ok.

>> "Bucket List" was better ;-)
>
> Never heard of that but I take it you are not recommending it either? :-)
>

Oh, now that one was funny.

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

"Jette" <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote in message
news:2whWj.2855$DZ6.2236@text.news.virginmedia.com ...
> Eva wrote:
>> "Justin Kase" <no@way.jose.ca> wrote in message
>> news:4822d625$0$31721$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> Eva wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am in the middle of watching "10,000 BC". I stayed away from any
>>>> spoilers so I didn't know what to expect but having reached a certain
>>>> point of the movie, it seems that RE just cannot lay his Stargate movie
>>>> to rest. One thing I did *not* expect from this movie was its genre,
>>>> LOL! I mean, seriously, this is too much even from someone like
>>>> Emmerich. (Can't say more here without adding some spoiler warning.)
>>>
>>>
>>> I got half-way through it (got it from a torrent site) and felt I had
>>> wasted my time downloading it.
>>
>>
>> SPOILER SPACE FOR "10,000 BC" below, not that I think anyone would care,
>> considering <g>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The same here but I did want to see it out of curiosity. It was not very
>> engaging and I kept wondering how close to the truth something like this
>> could be written (not that I expected much realism, you understand!),
>> loved the view of the river with the ships but then Emmerich totally lost
>> me at mammoths helping to build a pyramid in (hot!) desert and the
>> mutterings about the 'god' not being human and coming from the stars. He
>> sealed it off with the constellation of Orion - Graham Hancock et al
>> *must* be proud. I really should have known, LOL, 10,000 BC = 12,000. I
>> would like to know what exactly Emmerich was trying to do with this film.
>> So many people (not me) say Stargate was rubbish but, compared to this,
>> it's a masterpiece.
>>
>
>
> Meh - the eye-candy was ok.

Two things I have to say - must have missed it and shame on you, Jette, for
being so easily bought, LOL!

(BTW, in my rant I'd forgotten the Atlantis reference, Hancock's favourite.)

>>> "Bucket List" was better ;-)
>>
>> Never heard of that but I take it you are not recommending it either? :-)
>>
>
> Oh, now that one was funny.

Oh, did it have some eye-candy, too? <g&r>

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

Eva wrote:
> "Jette" <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2whWj.2855$DZ6.2236@text.news.virginmedia.com ...
>> Eva wrote:
>>> "Justin Kase" <no@way.jose.ca> wrote in message


>
>>>> "Bucket List" was better ;-)
>>>
>>> Never heard of that but I take it you are not recommending it either?
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>> Oh, now that one was funny.
>
> Oh, did it have some eye-candy, too? <g&r>
>


Depends how you feel about Morgan Freeman ;-)


--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

"Jette" <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote in message
news:3WjWj.2925$DZ6.1985@text.news.virginmedia.com ...
> Eva wrote:
>> "Jette" <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2whWj.2855$DZ6.2236@text.news.virginmedia.com ...
>>> Eva wrote:
>>>> "Justin Kase" <no@way.jose.ca> wrote in message
>
>
>>
>>>>> "Bucket List" was better ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Never heard of that but I take it you are not recommending it either?
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, now that one was funny.
>>
>> Oh, did it have some eye-candy, too? <g&r>
>>
>
>
> Depends how you feel about Morgan Freeman ;-)


Well, he is quite wonderful in so many ways. :-)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."