> the studio were concerned that Gero’s take on the series “would not have broad appeal beyond the franchise’s already dedicated fanbase.” This is a key component in reviving a legacy IP

It was popular because of who? The fans! No one needed the Disney-ization of Stargate. This is probably a good thing.

As bummed as I am by this news, I kinda understand the logic. The fan base likely didn't make up the majority of viewing figures when SG-1 and it's spin-offs were on the air. Otherwise, it would have been revived much sooner after their big bet on direct to DVD movies didn't pan out.

As far as I understand it, the movies were actually very successful, but there was some kind of internal politicking or studio issue and they just didnt continue.

The co-creator of Stargate was interviewed about it and said:

>The only thing that is blocking the SG-1 movie or the Atlantis movie, the only thing, is the fact that the direct-to-DVD market has gone away

https://web.archive.org/web/20101001085140/https://tvdeathra...

Interestingly, he also talked about the need to appeal to an audience outside of the existing fan base, quite relevant to the current discussion:

>If you just try to hang on to the viewers you have and the numbers are going down, they’ll eventually go down to the point where the network and the studio will say, “OK, we’re done.” That’s what happens. That’s definitely what happens.

I think they were wanting the Star Warization; no matter how stupid Star Wars gets, the fans kept showing up.

For those who don’t know (which seems to be the entire comment section at the moment), the new show is/was not a remake, they intended to follow on from the existing series.

I was pretty optimistic after watching the announcement [0] that this would be a decent show.

Here’s hoping they’ve developed it enough that they can shop it around.

[0] https://youtu.be/e82uV9sBt4I?si=ZY3qO4o8r1DH5voG

Joseph Mallozzi says it's not, and he was involved with the new series development. I suppose Amazon is making enough from the concept that they aren't interested in selling it.

Possibly it continues to stream frequently enough to be considered a contributor to Prime Video? Not sure if you can stream it other places, but if so, those fees would be continued revenue that might disappear if the reaction to a new show is poor.

They aren't going to make _this_ show, they might make another show in the future, one catering to a broader (non-core-fan) audience.

All of those are from the same continuity. (The show was not to be a remake/reboot, but also was not to be like, another season of one of the existing shows. I do wish they would just figure out how to finish Stargate: Universe... they even likely-purposefully left the plot/characters in a state where they could actually do the next season now, even after all this time, and even if some of the actors can't or won't be involved anymore.)

> Variety reports that executives at the studio were concerned that Gero’s take on the series “would not have broad appeal beyond the franchise’s already dedicated fanbase.”

in other words, it would have been good

We didn't want a "fresh perspective" on Stargate. We just wanted more classic Stargate.

Not at all related, "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy". ;)

Why do they even make announcements that they're going into production and then casually cancel the show? Do they not know they are completely toying with the emotions of fans? Giving false hope is worse than no hope.

If you are measuring the show up against the books - I did not read them, so I loved it purely based on the show itself.

Yes, the TV show had massive departures from the books, but I was actually referring to the acting skill or lack thereof of most of the cast.

Broad appeal? You can’t do anything good aiming for broad appeal. People like too different things, they all don’t mash together well. If you add to many tings that appeal to different people you end up with incoherent mess. Instead of appealing to everyone you end up pissing off everyone in many different ways.

Look at the Ring of Power. Did it have broad appeal? Maybe, first 2 episodes brought in 25 million viewers. The whole first season was watched by 150 millions, despite season completion being ~40%. For reference, X-Files pulled in more only in 1 of its 11 seasons with most under 20 mil, and Friends lowered in 20-25 mil with only one season being about 30 mil. So the numbers are impressive but do you know anyone who loves the Rings of Power? Anywhere near to how people love SG-1?

Massive fumble imho. I'm still sad about the SGU cancellation. It had so much potential for the third season. If Amazon won't commit to a new Stargate show it should at least release it for others to do so. Currently, it's keeping the franchise hostage.

The new Quantum Leap was terrible and most of the new Star Trek shows were equally as bad.

Maybe this is a good thing.

It wasn't a reboot, but a continuation. That doesn't mean it would have been good, of course (cf Universe), but better than a reboot.

Hopefully we hit that mythical "hollywood level audio/video" AI before too much longer and really creative people can run pirate series.

Sad they didn’t finish it. The later books seemed like they were written “to be movies/series” with less political stuff and more visuals / speculative sci-fi. Plus the story has an actual half decent conclusion.

To me the plight of Hollywood is “forever shows” where the writers start without knowing where it would end, so shows never really “end” they just slowly fizzle out without ever getting to the end.

I simply loved “the good place” for having such a powerful conclusion.

I'm currently reading the first book that takes place after the conclusion of the show. There's a large time jump and I suspect they didn't want to age up the actors for 3 seasons.

Oh no, a sci-fi series making a character a woman? Like that famous train wreck Battlestar Galactica?

Who cares about Starbuck's gender swap when you have Number Six?

I suppose if you make O'Neill a woman, you could bring in Vala earlier in the series as a similar distraction

They would probably ruin it anyway. The new commander would probably be a woman and be totally bland like the lord of the rings thing they did. I don’t know anyone that has watched that.

Multiple comments on this thread about how bad it would be if the main character was a woman. Why is that so bad?

Media isn’t made for men anymore. I don’t believe you can make media that appeals to both men and women at the same time. It creates bland, tasteless media with no gravitas because you have to appeal to the widest possible base so all edginess and grit that give the movie memorable moments are completely removed.

That's such a bleak view of men. I think they're more open to variety in their media than you give them credit for.

I actually find that view of men inspiring. Depending on what “variety” you mean, an openness to that is depressing, infuriating even. It belies a rot, grinding down the best characteristics.

I can only match your level of specificity. What do you mean? You gestured vaguely in the direction of something. What do you consider "made for men" that isn't represented now?

Unapologetically promiscuous leading men, women on screen purely as sex props and not in some two bit low production value shoot em up. I mean high art like countless examples in the recent past. Edgy concepts like rape, domestic abuse and general violence against women being accurately depicted on screen again when necessary to tell the story. I can appreciate strong women characters on screen but not when it’s a requirement that every woman on screen be one.

If Hollywood doesn’t figure this out in time, they will fail. Already shows like Kill Tony are becoming the biggest and most prolific stand-up shows in America. Those people can be truly funny because they have no boundaries. Listening to comics on every other show feels extremely boring now. SNL is unwatchable, late night talk shows are failing, “clean” comics play to empty arenas. The problem is those guys are straight up racist, homophobic, and misogynistic and tightly bound to the Trump administration.

I think we live in very different media environments. I have no idea what Kill Tony is, have always thought SNL and most late night was dull, and have a steady stream of good stand-up comedians who aren't any sort of ist or phobic in my timelines.

And I have no idea when

>> "Unapologetically promiscuous leading men, women on screen purely as sex props and not in some two bit low production value shoot em up. I mean high art like countless examples in the recent past."

would have been the norm. Even the worst of the Hays Code era had plenty of strong leading women. Before that, tons of lecherous women, queer women, etc.

Yeah we’re probably in different bubbles. The problem is most men are in my bubble. Shane Gillis is probably the biggest comedian to come out of kill Tony and the one you’re most likely to have heard of.

Here’s how it applies to the top 10 movies on IMDb

Shawshank redemption: the well liked male protagonist righteously murders his wife for cheating on him

The Godfather: pretty much encapsulates all of my requirements

12 angry men: no women

Original LOTR: Does women characters incredibly well

Pulp fiction: Mia is in there for a few key scenes, no nonsense

The good, the bad and the ugly: self explanatory. Great male characters

Forest gump: Jenny might be the greatest villain ever for her promiscuity

I can go on and on. All these movies have gravitas. You won’t see any movie post 2015 even crack the top 100 (besides Parasite but that isn’t Hollywood) because that’s about when they lost the plot.

The original SG-1 did that already. Carter was the team leader for season 8 while O'Neill was base commander.

And Atlantis had a civilian woman in charge from the pilot episode.

Given the many commenters who are decrying a potentially "woke" version of the show simply because it might feature a female lead character who might act like a competent officer...

...This is probably for the best. Studios try to avoid catering to the incel fandom, as that scares away everyone else who might otherwise be interested.

Also...SG-1 and Atlantis both featured competent women. Carter, Fraiser, and Weir were smart but not strong. Teyla was strong but not too bright. Most of the guest characters were minorities. The show was woke as heck.

Good! Did you really need more Stargate? Just watch the classic movie, and 200+ episodes of SG-1 and then 100+ episodes of Atlantis. Let these franchises rest.

You are not alone. That 'verse has so much to explore and so many possible pathways and plot-lines yet requited. We know nothing about the Furlings.

>Let these franchises rest.

your beloved franchises vill be re-imagined for ze modern audience und there's nothing you can do about it.

Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.

If you haven't seen Stargate SG-1, it was one of the greatest shows. I would rather rewatch it than watch a bad remake. Stargate Atlantis was not half bad either.

They will likely hire the cheapest script writer, who in turn will likely offload it to the cheapest LLM, resulting in derivative work that is not in any way creative or inspiring.

"modern wokeness", ah, yes. Because the show about religion as a means of control, that featured strong women throughout, was broadly about how colonialism is bad and the importance of respecting different cultures, that brute force was almost never the 'right answer' is anti-woke.

I'm on season 6 of a rewatch with family right now, and I will say that one of the things I had not remembered was just how much of the time brute force IS the right answer in this show.

All the women roles were reasonable back then. Actual characters you could get behind. Now it’s going to be some nonsense like an all woman crew every one of them aping male behavior. It’s off putting and something most men would have a hard time watching.

For example, look at all the recent Star Trek series; they have been an abomination, and are rightfully canceled.

I’ve seen those shows and still don’t know what you mean. Since you didn’t mean the other stuff you’ll need to be more explicit

Yea I watched stargate SG-1 and can confirm that plenty of media released post covid is not only half as great, but a good deal better.

Like what (in sci-fi)? Not counting the Star Wars series, the last independent good scifi show that I recall was The Expanse, the majority of which was pre-Covid. In fairness, Foundation is okay, but not great.

It's funny you mention the expanse because I find it similar to the stargate show. Solid, but in no way extraordinary. Now, I agree sci-fi especially TV has been a bit rough recently, but that's mostly because its not popular so there isnt much made, not anything to do with ability to make it.

Still, there have been sci fi masterpieces released recently. Dune being the most obvious. Not an original story but a far more worthy production than stargate sg-1. Everything everywhere all at once was also more compelling than stargate imo but this might be where your anti woke complaints come in. Nope also fits this bill, but fine you dont have to love that. There are still examples which have no wokeness at all as far as I can tell. I found the foundation show to be similar quality to stargate sg-1, perhaps a bit worse I guess but in no way definitively worse. Topically I found project hail mary to be good enough, certainly no worse than stargate.

As am I. If the take is just that sci fi movies dont count and only 22 episode seasons count as "real" sci fi we can have that conversation too. It's a valid take that I absolutely disagree with. But that's not how I read the original comment(which has now been edited to remove the woke part)