Stargate Universe. Anyone interested in this?

[ctg]

I haven't watched much of the original or the Atlantis-series, but I watched the two episodes of ST-U that was shown tonight. As far as I'm concerned the script worked perfectly for the situation they were in, because I was hooked and didn't feel at all that I was hoaxed in any way. So four stars to ST-U.

The one thing that I'm afraid is that they are going to extended to exploration of the ship to several seasons.

 

[PTeppic]

Exploration of the ship gives them perfect "episode on a bottle" for keeping their cost/episode down to balance off the big effects driven "exploring other planets" or "ship meeting other ship and fighting" kind of plots.

Some of the early SG-1 [i.e. the Stargate spin-off] episodes were almost cringe-worthy (thinking of "Emancipation" here) in how bad they were... yet it's gone on to be "the longest running sci-fi series of all time". And that's presumably without five seasons of the spin-off to the spin-off, "Stargate Atlantis" (which hit the ground running much better). I'd expect SG-U to do quite well on the front with the team at their peak... so long as the fresh stories keep coming.

 

[Talysia]

Well, having seen both the previous series (although I didn't like Atlantis as much as SG1), I can say that I rather enjoyed these first two episodes. I'm looking forward to seeing where this new premise will go.

 

[ctg]

I was thinking are they going to follow Arthur C Clarke Rama with this series, because certainly some of things Clarke has described could be easily weaved into the series. What do you reckon?

 

[Highlander II]

I wasn't impressed with the pilot ep of SGU either. Filmed too dark, boring plot, lackluster dialog, and ZERO likable characters - all of which are horrible clichés as it is. blah.

I'll probably watch a few more episodes, to see if the writers have done anything to make it 'better', but I'm not holding out much hope based on what I've heard so far.

 

[PTeppic]

So far I've only read the transcript, not actually seen, of the first of the three parts of the premier/pilot. Because they've gone non-linear ("to make it more interesting"/trendy) they've got to get backstory of where they are / how they got there into the pilot at the same time as creating the "universe" and having a first episode story (rather than starting "now" or telling it traditionally). With such a large cast I'm sure we're going to get a lot more backstory too (I'm thinking "Lost" here).

Pilots are always tricky, trying to fit double content (the series concept plus this week's plot) into one show. I'll give it a few weeks.

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

Because they've gone non-linear ("to make it more interesting"/trendy) they've got to get backstory of where they are / how they got there into the pilot at the same time as creating the "universe" and having a first episode story (rather than starting "now" or telling it traditionally). With such a large cast I'm sure we're going to get a lot more backstory too (I'm thinking "Lost" here).

Pilots are always tricky, trying to fit double content (the series concept plus this week's plot) into one show. I'll give it a few weeks.

That's the second person the mention Lost and someone also mentioned the Battlestar Galactica "shakey-cam" cinematography. Glad I wasn't the only one making those comparisons.

The downside with aping other shows so obviously though is you risk alienating your existing fan base and you forgo any attempt at originality in your quest to seem the same as other successful shows. Another downside is that, as has already been mentioned so far, the characters just aren't that appealing.

Eli seems to have already been lined up to be the comedy relief character (and how long before they do a Hurley and have him obsessing about food? I give it 2 weeks), Rush has pyscho-obsessive scientist with a 'troubled background' written all over him and the other characters have a "designed by PR committee" feel to them already.

Basically, like a lot of pilot episodes for new sci-fi series recently it's a mediocre beginning. I'll stick with it and hope it improves over time. They usually do, if they get past the first series and are picked up again, but I deplore that some shows which are rubbish to begin with are given the lifeline to improve when other more risky & original shows aren't. Bah.

 

[Dr.Jackson]

I had my misgivings about this series from the instant I heard the description 'stuck on a failing Ancient ship with no way home'. I assumed that the Gate would not feature heavily in it, but I see they've managed to bung it in via the automated gate-building/seeding ship that is probably still out there somewhere.

I did feel a lot of the pilot was very dark, but then they are on a ship trying to save power. Problem is, they might only be able to have enemy-of-the-week encounters as they'd be screwed if anyone attacked the ship.

I had a fun game of 'spot-the-cliché' *[FONT=&quot][/FONT] watching the first two episodes, but I suppose it is to be expected. They did have some unspoken exposition of Rush's character in a short time so we know why he's driven the way he is. They've set up relationships to be built between certain characters already and given us some character-by-numbers fodder; the possibly dangerous 'criminal' , his reason for being locked up as yet undisclosed, the heroic type with a condition he wants to keep secret. Any bets as to when one of the female characters will reveal that she's pregnant?

Anyhow, it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I thought, so I'm going to stick with it.

 

[PTeppic]

It can be described as SG:BSG, a cross between Star Trek: Voyager and Lost.

 

[Krystal]

What did you like in Dr. Rush's character ? He got on my nerves with his character.

He's the character so far that have intrigue me, usually I like to enjoy the progress of the characters that are not essencially good or bad but that have gray areas to their personalities. He's character is a good example of that and have a lot of promise story wise. And of course, love Carlysle acting.

 

[purple_kathryn]

I liked it, seems a bit more adult that the previous SGs (although that may because of the sex scene). I would agree it had more of a BSG feel.

and I love Robert Carlisle as an actor. I always find him interesting to watch

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

I liked it, seems a bit more adult that the previous SGs (although that may because of the sex scene). I would agree it had more of a BSG feel.

and I love Robert Carlisle as an actor. I always find him interesting to watch

Sex scene? I don't remember that in the first two episodes? Have you seen some of the later ones then?

 

[mwb]

I'm going with the not pleased side of the equation. Enough with the shaky cam as a substitute for actual directing.

Stupid people, making bad decisions, yelling and fighting a lot is not well made drama, IMO. It can be well done within a broader storytelling context and as part of a dramatic narrative, but is not a substitute or shortcut for either. Here it smacks of filing the serial numbers off of network TV action dramas.

Oh, let's not forget the annoying musical numbers to accentuate (or so they think) the drama during video montages - straight from the worst of WB teen dramas.

Sadly, I realized what the show is also a pale sad copy of too. Alfred Hitchcock's Life Boat (based on a story by John Steinbeck) but without the ability to build real drama, characterization and dialog. BTW, I take it the over reliance in contemporary TV dramas and movies on the song montages to invoke mood as a lack of faith in the actual construction of the dramatic moments of the piece. Go see the Hitchcock movie and note the lack of any music once the film starts.

I'm actually surprised how many people keep invoking Star Trek: Voyager when it seems the real pedigree for the show is even worse. They can't control their vessel and our hopelessly far away from earth - but they get a magic 12 hour window to explore new worlds, look for supplies to survive or see if the world is worth settling on or do they continue. That's straight from Space: 1999, not ST:V.

One of the things I loved about the Stargate franchise was the actual love for, and appreciation of, the science fiction genre. It drew deeply from it. So far SGU is not doing that and it is disappointing to see.

I'll keep watching to see if it turns around but I'm not optimistic.

 

[purple_kathryn]

Sex scene? I don't remember that in the first two episodes? Have you seen some of the later ones then?

It's one of the flashback scenes 2 of the soliders are "enjoying themselves" in the galley when the guy gets called to go on duty

 

[PTeppic]

The DVD could end up with a 15 here in the UK, though I doubt it. The pilot for SG-1 was 18, though that was due to the combination of full-frontal nudity and the snakes-in-the-head/abdomen, which was unprecedented (pretty much) at the time.

 

[PTeppic]

Incidentally: urgent request. Has anyone got the two halves as separate shows, on DVR, video or Sky+ etc.? I'm just after finding out what the last scene of Air-1 is, and the first of Air-2. I don't know if it's been broadcast anywhere other than as the single combined double-lengther.

1) No, I'm not after a copy.
2) The transcript site I normally use has change the break point, so I'm hoping for independent verification.

 

[Vladd67]

It was shown on Sky as two episodes one after another and iirc Air-1 finished with the team going through the gate to look for minerals to fix the life support system. I am not impressed so far, a group of characters of whom not one seems to be at all worth worrying about. A disorganised undisciplined rabble who to be honest unless things improve I wouldn't miss if I never saw again. Sgt Spencer for one is a character who is going to get boring real quickly, a bully with a chip on his shoulder, he is such a cliché I really hope the writers develop him. As a fan of the all things Stargate I will give it a chance to improve, who knows it might grow on me.

 

[PTeppic]

For me they've simply tried (because of the situation they've created) to start with too big a core cast, i.e. a Lost-style list of 80+ survivors (plus a handful back on Earth/body-swapping), of which far too many are prominent[#]. That means they're training to flesh out too many people for actual plot, so inevitably will get compound cliches until they've got time to develop actual character/back-story. And, like Lost, there's lots of scope for flash-back, albeit padded out with body-swap "back on Earth" if they want to.

Rush, Scott, Chloe, Eli, Young, Camille, Greer, Johansen, Park, Brody, Riley, Franklin, Telford (with at least six other named people on the ship and a few on Earth, who may or may not be regulars/irregulars) - and that excludes the Senator. Just a couple more than the five or so we started with in SG-1's "Children of the Gods".

 

[Jo@TORDFC]

Well, I'm now up to date.

I can't say that I'm hooked yet but I will give it a few more episodes to settle in. It's not as terrible as some of the reviews said it is.

 

[planetocean]

I'm watching it but it does not have that charm like the other stargates do. I'm going to keep on watching it but it does not pull me in like stargate does. There is no chemistry between anyone that is what makes a show. This one does not have it. When I seen the previews for it I was so excited that a new stargate was coming out but hopefully this one picks up a little more.