Talk:Stargate (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Giza" seems to be preferred spelling. If correct spelling in context of "Stargate" should be "Gizeh", please adjust. Thanks.

We're sticking to Giza I think.

StarGate - SG-1/Atlantis

The story for the StarGate film and SG-1 are completely different. The film and the television show should not be grouped together in the same universe. This Wikipedia entry should be edited to reflect this.--Promus Kaa

That is your opinion which is not allowed on wikipedia. Please do not change the article in that way.

It's not my opinion, it is fact. In the movie, the nature of Ra's existance and his species are entirely different then what was made up for SG-1. Please read again my "Differences" addition if you need this clarified. Note these are not "Inconsistencies," but true "Differences" between Emmerich's version of StarGate and Glassner's version.--Promus Kaa

The differences are fact, not that the show and movie are different continuums. You can state that there is a difference and be fine but saying that they are different continuums is strictly opinion and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Konman72 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? Almost all of the guards had brown skin color, and almost all of O'Neils team were white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.134.65 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Differences

68.47.197.69 keeps putting the following into the article...

Due to these extreme variances, it is generally accepted within the fan community that the StarGate film and SG-1 take place in different continuums independent of each other.

This claim requires citation since it is POV and original research. Please do not put it back into the article until proper citation is found. Also, the same user keeps changing it to say that the series was "loosely" based on the film. This too is POV and is definitely not allowed in a wikipedia article. The series is said to be "based on" and unless you can find something that says otherwise it stays that way. Konman72 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well at least now I know what happened to my additions, and why it kept mysteriously disappearing!! I didn't know what was going on, lol. However, it IS fact that within the fan community, the film and the show are generally accepted to take place in universes independently from each other. That's not just my "opinion." That addition should at least be added. User:Promus_Kaa
Thats the first time i have ever heard that, please do not readd that nonsense. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously you haven't been on any Stargate message boards that ACTUALLY discuss the FILM, not just the crappy spin-offs. Granted, there aren't many boards like that out there, but just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't true. And it certainly isn't nonsense, it's fan opinion (not to mention canonical fact). User:Promus_Kaa

Obviously you aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies. Read the following and you will understand...

What you have read on a fan forum is not fit to be added to Wikipedia. Please do not readd that information unless you find a reliable source for it. Oh, and in the future, before readding something please check the edit history since I left numerous reasons for the edits which would have told you why you should not have readded them. Konman72 21:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

It is spelled Stargate, not StarGate. Please stop changing the spelling on the article. Even the movie version spelled it this way[1]. Konman72 04:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The book spelled it StarGate, as did magazine articles and merchandise made for the film back in 1994, to explain why I spell it that way only for the film. The one-word spelling "Stargate" was popularized during the run of the television show.
The standard spelling is Stargate, that is the spelling from the film and TV show so that is the spelling that must be used here. Konman72 04:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The film uses: Stargate, the tv shows use: Stargate. It is writen Stargate, notice how the title of the article is not: StarGate (film)? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Promus, please stop changing the spelling. It is Stargate, not StarGate. I don't care what the books say, this is about the film and the show. Konman72 20:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

All fans of the film spell it "StarGate," because that was the original spelling. Not just in the books, but in merchadising, magazine articles, ads, etc. The lowercase "g" thing was popularized by the show, and like everything else made up for the show, overrides whatever the film established. But whatever; if you obviously biased-toward-SG-1 people want to keep it with a lowercase "g," that's your choice. I still think it's not very accurate and simply an example of bias and opinion, which really isn't allowed on Wikipedia. But I'm tired of haggling with you people. Hopefully Devlin will make his sequels soon, and we'll finally be able to seperate the film and the TV on Wikipedia. Promus Kaa 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The word only appears in written form twice in the film. First in the opening titles, where it's written in all caps, and when Daniel writes it on a chalkboard, where it's spelled with a lowercase "g."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.163.212 (talk)

Also IMDB spells it Stargate.[2] This isn't an SG-1 bias, it is just the film fans being...well, wrong. If the spelling was changed after the film then that is the creator's decision, but since MGM is the copyright owner they decide whether or not it is changed and it hasn't been. It has always been spelled Stargate, what the film fans want to do is their business, but the creators decided on Stargate and that is how we will spell it. The only bias and opinion involved is your own since both the movie and series spell it Stargate, not StarGate, the books are the only one to get it wrong. Konman72 06:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Everything regarding the film made during its release is spelled with a capital "G." Take a look at Roland Emmerich's hat it this picture: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/Deloravius/StarGate/stargate6.jpg Magazine articles, merchandise, both versions of the book, and apparently this hat all spelled it with a capital "G," which is the correct spelling for the film. SG-1-related articles may be spelled however they wish to be, but StarGate should retain its original title as it appeared on official documents and items. Daniel Jackson's spelling on the chalkboard is a misspelling. --Promus Kaa 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Every letter in the picture you provide is capitalized so it proved nothing. Either way I think the evidence provided so far has proven that the film is Stargate, not StarGate (now at least, if not then as well). Even if you proved that the intended spelling was originally StarGate, the coyright owner has determined that Stargate is the better spelling and wishes that it be used for all gate related material (as evidenced by....everything), so that is what we should use. Konman72 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but in that pic the capital G is larger then the rest. And whatever screwed-up MGM wants to say, SG-1-related crap can be spelled however the hell it wants to be, but stuff regarding the film should be StarGate. MGM, just like the idiots who made the show, didn't do their f**king research, lol. :P But whatever...soon Devlin will finally make his films, and after 12 years, finally provide a continuation to the film, something that no one has ever seen. --Promus Kaa 18:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A larger than normal G does not denote a capital G. The "idiots" at MGM can decide what to do with the film since they own all rights to it, so even if Devlin and Emmerich want it to be StarGate it doesn't matter, MGM wants Stargate and that is what they will get. And I have said before, Devlin will never make those movies. He just said he wants to, but MGM has never even commented on them....because they won't make them. Oh, and I thought the books were the continuation, guess that was a lie. And yet again I have to remind you, it wasn't a lack of research, it was improvement. They knew what Emmerich and Devlin wanted and intended and consciously chose to do otherwise. Obviously they did the correct thing since they took a mediocre movie and made the longest running SciFi show in US history ;) Konman72 18:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, are you all going to ignore what I wrote? Daniel Jackson, in the actual film, spelled it "Stargate." How can Daniel be wrong? 67.171.163.212 14:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A similar issue has arisen over on the Stargate Comics - I've dropped a note into the talk page saying I'd take the consensus here as the right spelling (otherwise I can see confusion arising and later editors coming in and changing it to a lower case g and things going back and forth forever). So am I correct in assuming that most people here are of the opinion we should stick to the lower case spelling? (Emperor 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

In the novel written by Devlin & Emmerich The title is in capitals as is the scene where Daniel scribbles Stargate on the chalk board, Everywhere else it is spelled "StarGate". darrennie (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Differences additions

The top chevron of the film's StarGate is different then the rest of its chevrons. In SG-1, all of the chevrons on a stargate are identical.

The top one is different in the show as well.

In the StarGate film, each StarGate has its own unique set of symbols. In SG-1, every stargate throughout the galaxy has the same set of symbols.

They have different symbols in the show as well.

The "wormhole" sequence in the film is longer and has more features to it then the "wormhole" sequence used in SG-1.

The wormhole sequence in the show changes length many times and has had teh full length version from the film shown many times.

Please stop readding things without discussion of the reasons why they were removed. Konman72 04:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've seen the film's stargate, and the show's stargate. In the show, all the chevrons look exactly the same. In the film, the top chevron is not an "arrowhead" like the others, it's completely different. I will attempt to find pictures of it to show you. --Promus Kaa

Then it needs rewording. The top chevron in the show is different from the rest in that it "pops" when the symbol is dialed. Konman72 06:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the different sets of symbols, in SG-1, all stargates in a particular network do share the same bunch of 36 symbols, as do the DHD's. Otherwise, the SG team couldn't type in the same address for Earth from lots of different planets, as they are shown doing on numerous occasions. --Promus Kaa

Each gate has its own unique symbol as its "home" symbol. Konman72 06:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As for re-adding things without discussion of the reasons for editing them...I believe it was you who first edited things without giving notes of comments, which originally had me very confused. --Promus Kaa

I put an edit summary onto each one saying that the deletions were original research and point of view. Please check the history before making edits in the future. Konman72 06:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I'm going to break down the Stargate symbol difference since I think it has gotten confusing. In the movie each stargate has a unique set of 36 or 39 symbols (not sure the exact number), but in the series each gate has the same 38 symbols minus a single point of origin symbol that is different for each planet. This is what should probably be added to the article. Konman72 06:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Film's Top Chevron

Okay, I was (miraculously) able to find some pictures (albeit grainy pictures) of the top chevron on the film's stargate.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/Deloravius/0003.jpg http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/Deloravius/0002.gif http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/Deloravius/0001.jpg

Note that this chevron is unique to the film's 'gate, and does not appear on the show's 'gate.

I was able to find a good frontal pic of the show's 'gate...on which you'll notice that all the chevrons are identical.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/Deloravius/0004.jpg

If you need more pictures of the show's 'gate, just look here at stargate (device). There (or here, actually...lol), you'll also see that the lit-chevron 'gate from SG-1 (and even the Atlantis gate) have chevrons that all match each other, unlike the film's version. Both also lack the unique chevron that I showed you in the first three pictures. Also, you'll see that said entry also proves the fact that in SG-1 (and Atlantis, too) there are a set bunch of 39 symbols for each gate network. Every 'gate in the Milky Way network shares the same set of symbols, and every 'gate in the Pegasus network shares its own set of symbols.

If you originally drew your reference for the show's 'gate from the box art on the DVD sets, I feel obligated to point out that the box art of the stargate is highly errorneous, as not only are all the chevrons drawn incorrectly (with a full border over the "top" of each chevron), but there are Egyptian hieroglyphics in place of the stargate symbols. I think we all recognize that the box art is not a proper canonical reference.

I understand your point about the wormhole sequences, and I concede in that topic. However, I do request that the facts about the unique stargate chevron (as seen only in the film) and the symbol issue be re-added to my list of differences between StarGate and SG-1.

As I said, it needs rewording. The gates in the show have different top chevrons as well, but they are still different from the ones in the movie so the entry can be made, just with different words. As far as the different symbols on each gate goes, it needs rewording at the very least. Each gate has its own home symbol so that alone makes them different and then I'm not sure that all the gates in the milky way have the same symbols besides that. Konman72 06:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How is the top chevron in the show different from the other chevrons?? It looks just the same as the rest!! Here's a DIAGRAM of SG-1's gate, for cryin' out loud ;): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milky_Way_Stargate_%28blank%29.png As well as a picture of the prop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stargate_greenscreen.jpg

And here's some pictures of the gates in the Atlantis network... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pegasus-gate2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pegasus-gate.jpg

There are other pictures at stargate (device), if you need further confirmation. All the chevrons on these gates look exactly the same, and the top chevron looks exactly the same as all the rest of its chevrons. My original entry need not be reworded.--Promus Kaa 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the show? If you have then you would know that the top chevron "pops" when a symbol is dialed, thus making it different. You are correct in that they are aesthetically identical in every respect beside the lighting, but my point was that they were not the same. Konman72 20:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have watched the show...and as far as I know, ALL the chevrons "pop" to lock in a symbol, not just the top one. If the top one is the only chevron that moves in SG-1, then that's ANOTHER difference between the film and SG-1 that needs to be mentioned.--Promus Kaa 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, on the show the top pops. In the movie all the chevrons pop. Phrase it however you want but the top is different in both the movie and the show; just in different ways. Konman72 21:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you drawing your reference from the 'gate as it operates under the influence of the DHD?? In that case, yeah, the chevrons don't clamp/pop, but I should also point out that the inner ring doesn't spin under the DHD, either. That doesn't mean the ring doesn't spin; it does. The other chevrons on the show clamp, they just usually only show the top one. And this topic has TOTALLY gone out of hand. My ORIGINAL entry was on APPEARNCE, not on function. In the film, the top chevron LOOKS different then the others. In SG-1, all the chevrons LOOK the same. This was my original entry. I never originally said anything about function. If you think a seperate entry/paragraph needs to be made in regards to function, go ahead and do so. However, my original entry was again only based on how the chevrons LOOK, not how they function (if at all).

No, I am basing it off how the stargate functions, the top pops, the rest do not. Watch the show and you will see (I recommend the episode The Warrior from season 5 since that one has a close-up of a non-top chevron during the dialing sequence). The sentence as it is now is ok, I will make a minor change to it that I doubt anyone will object to. Konman72 01:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the entry now is cool, I do agree. Thanks for the episode reference, too, I'll have to check that out. :D However, I think the entry should stay on the chevrons as they are at rest, unlit. Going off on the tangent of how the top is lit differently kinda strays from and confuses and complicates the main topic. Personally, I think the lighting issue in SG-1 is merely a technical issue on the part of the effects crew, since as you've said, the top is the only one that pops. Apparently they weren't able to light the top one as they do the rest of the chevrons, as the top has more mechanical stuff in it that allows it to pop, I'm guessing. I think they made it match the others as best they could in a physical prop. The digital gates in SG-1 (and especially in Atlantis) all have every chevron being lit the same way, which must be something they can do in CG that they can't do in physical reality, lol. Although the light comment on the SG-1 gates might be justified, I think it complicates the whole entry, and sort of goes off topic, especially considering that if you have that in there, you've also gotta put how the chevrons on an Atlantis network stargate ARE all lit the same.

I've also added an entry on the fact that all the chevrons on the film's gate pop, while only the show's top one pops. This makes the point you were making, only it does so in a seperate entry, as to keep the "chevron differences" entry simple and easy to understand for a non-fan.--Promus Kaa 15:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The top one being lit differently isn't a technical issue since it is lit more than the rest lol. But I do agree that it is a small issue so if it is removed I won't mind. Konman72 21:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

lol, gotchya about the top chevron in SG-1. Whew...took a while, but I think we finally have the edges of the "Differences" entry ironed out into its completed version that we both agree on. It was a pleasure working with you; thanks!! *handshakes*--Promus Kaa 01:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice working with you too, it is always nice to reach a compromise rather than just having one side take over or something. By the way, I took out the "different lighting" thing because I was slightly mistaken, all the chevrons light up the same when the gate is active, the only time the lighting is different is during dialing. Konman72 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis

Someone has been adding to the synopsis. While the additions are very well done and very appreciated it is getting a bit long in my opinion. Perhaps we should limit it to large events. I'm not saying to delete anything but perhaps if any more major additions are made it would be best to go back and take out some of the minor occurences. Anyone else agree? Konman72 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A synopsis is fine; that's what we had before. A long-winded, detailed account of the every aspect of the entire story is unnecessary, not to mention the grammar stinks, lol. There's a difference between a synopsis (what we had before) and what we have now. It needs to be shortened to the main events, and the grammar needs to be fixed; right now, it sounds like the story as a five-year-old in preschool would write it, and is NOT professional enough to be on Wikipedia. Also...wasn't there an entry or two that were right below the "Differences" entry?? I could have sworn that the "Differences" entry wasn't the entry at the very bottom. This user, whoever s/he is, probably did that, too...what in blazes is going on?!?--Promus Kaa 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


The summary of the plot is nearly a blow by blow line by line transcript of the screenplay. Not only is it overkill, but it very much gives away the film to those who have not seen it. Well written and detailed as it is, it needs to be severely cut back. LonelyBeacon 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Whew! That was an edit. I tried planning how to write this, but found it very difficult. I think it could still use some help, and I hope some fellow 'Gate fans will give a hand ..... but please make sure to avoid going into the intricate details that turn this from an article into a screen treatment. LonelyBeacon 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Reason Kawalski was killed off

This shouldn't be added to teh article but I though you guys would like to know why Kawalski was killed off so early in the show. It seems that they had gotten approval for his character to be recurring throughout the first season, but the actor from the film couldn't do it (he had said he could but then scheduing got screwed up). So they signed the new guy but the studio wouldn't approve him for recurring character status and the actor could only do a guest spot, so they had to kill him off. Just thought this was interesting. Also, considering the amount of screen time he actually had was 3 hours while any sequel would have been 2 is it really note worthy that he got killed? I mean, he got just as much story and air time, it just seems weird to have that as trivia. But whatever, no big deal either way (although reading the entry it does seem a little POV, like "but in the show they didn't care and just killed the guy anyway" or something to that effect, so perhaps a slight rewrite should be done anyway). Konman72 13:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It was trivia enough for Dean Devlin to mention it in the commentary as an interesting fact; I think it therefore counts as something trivia-worthy. And we were already over this, you agreed to the whole thing...I don't get why you had to bring it all up again. Promus Kaa
Well it just dawned on me that it isn't really that big a deal that Kawalski was killed off in 3 episodes since that was 3 hours of air time, which is more than any sequel would have had. Also he played a significant role in those episodes. The first part wasn't an argument against its inclusion by the way, it was just a nice trivia item that I thought you might like to know. My only real argument is the one made here, 3 hours seems like enough to not warrant it as trivia. And Devlin was just pissed, always has been, so anything he says is said with a bias and malice. Konman72 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ra's Soul

"In the film, Ra inhabited a human's body by possessing the human with his soul, rather than being a parasitic snake who takes over a human host by physical possession as in SG-1." This is in the "Differences between movie and SG-1" section. Since its in Hieroglyphics, maybe the person who wrote this, a human probably, (why would Ra himself actually spend time scribing?)thought his soul was the possing element? not the parasitic snake? To onlooking humans, it obviously will look like someone transfering his soul. I have no idea how to and if I should edit this article. Someone please answer—Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolfromhell (talk • contribs)

It is tough because it is pretty obvious in the film that they were implying a non-physical possession, but it is never overtly stated. I'm sure I know what Promus wants, but others I'm not so sure about, even myself. So I will defer to other's opinions for now. Konman72 01:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the whole "snake" thing was made up for SG-1 when it rolled around. The original film script and backstory (which Glassner obviously either foolishly ignored or didn't read) clearly states that Ra possessed the boy with his soul, which means that those Egyptians who wrote the hieroglyphics were correct. Promus Kaa 03:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not clearly state it in the film. This "backstory" of which you speak must be in the film and the film alone in order to be included. Not saying you're wrong that the symbiote was made up for the show, but it is never overtly stated thus it cannot be included. Oh, and Glassner ignored it wisely, the symbiote made it more realistic. A metaphysical possession isn't a very good basis for a series, a stand alone film maybe, but not a series. Again you make the mistake of thinking the shows changes are a mistake. They are intentional and for a good reason (obviously since it is the longest running scifi show in US history ;-) ). You are making the same mistake Emmerich and Devlin did by the way, they see the changes and say, "idiots didn't know what tehy were doing" when it was actually just a better choice. Konman72 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To give you an example of your own bitching..."That's an opinion and should not be allowed." [/mockery] You're obviously biased toward SG-1, so stop trying to say that you're all "neutral viewpoint"ed. And I never tried saying that we should add the metaphysical thing to the entry again...I'm through haggling with your bias. I was simply teling FoolFromHell what was up. He asked a question, and I answered it. Now get off my case. Promus Kaa 03:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Simmer down, remember to be civil. I am bias towards SG-1 in the same way you are bias towards the film, the difference though is that I don't allow it to affect my editting. I wasn't referring to you when I said the metaphysical thing couldn't be allowed, it was a general statement is all (although I believe it was you who put it into the article long ago)(Oh and I do sometimes say stuff like that at random, you have to understand that a lot of random users will read this later and decide whether to add stuff or not, so if they see something here about Ra possessing metaphysically then they might decide to add it to the article, which is why I put stuff like that out there all the time). I'm sorry if I offended you or misspoke in any way, I was merely responding to your edit with my opinion. I would expect you to do the same, but I ask that you refrain from cursing in your next one. Konman72 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And what are you so offended by anyway, the "soul" entry is in the article(meaning my comment about it being opinion and not worthy of being added to the article were proper)! It shouldn't be, but it is. And you know what, I'm not taking it down. That is my compromise to you. My opinion is that you are correct, however the question remains, is it NPOV and not original research? It should be removed, it really should, but in the interest of peace, civility and compromise I will personally allow it. Now the ball is in your court, are you wanting to make a neutral, encyclopedic entry or a fancruft article talking about how great the film is. If you are truly neutral then you will delete the entry, and you know it. Konman72 03:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never tried to say that I was neutral; I'm not. I'll stop my complaining, but that entry should remain there. Sorry, I just get really passionate about this stuff sometimes, lol. Promus Kaa 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's cool, don't worry about it, we can all get a little carried away sometimes. I will hold to my word and leave that entry there. I do think that you might want to reassess your purpose here. If you are not neutral then you are only harming Wikipedia since NPOV is one of the highest priorities here(the reason I mention you not being neutral as though you claimed to be is because all wikipedians are supposed to be as neutral as possible). Either way though, I hope that we can start with a clean slate and work together to create a nice article here. Hell, maybe one day this could be a featured article lol. Konman72 04:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am biased toward the film, but I try not to reflect it in my entries. For example, I don't go all "OMG SG-1 SUCKS" in an article, LOL. I'm here on Wikipedia because I know a lot about the film (and a lot of people don't), so I figured I could lend my knowledge about the film's universe to Wikipedia. But I don't hold grudges, and I'm all for a clean slate. :D And once Devlin makes the sequels, hopefully we'll finally be able to seperate this entry from the SG-1 universe, lol. Promus Kaa 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. Glad to have you on board lol. Konman72 06:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Reception Entry

Who edited this, and why?? Why did they get rid of the positive comments?? These SG-1 bastards should really leave the film stuff alone...their obvious but self-denied bias is sickening. God forbid the "Reception" entry be POSITIVE toward the film!! Oh, no. RDA is so much better as O'Neill because he's funny. Giggle. Hehe.

RDA is a crappy actor, especially compared to Kurt Russell, who can actually play a MILITARY MAN. Man, sometimes I just want to shoot myself. SG-1 fans drive me up the wall.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I would request that the "Reception" entry have it's previous info added back in. Also, the RottenTomatoes example should not be cited, as most of the reviews on RottenTomatoes were not made when the film was released. Promus Kaa 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed it, and if you think [[3]] is more positive then you have issues lol. Aside from the last uncited comment it was all negative stuff. I changed it to be more in line with other film articles. If you have some issue with a specific thing then feel free to edit it and as long as it is verifiable and not original research then so much the better. Oh and rottentomatoes is always used in reception sections, otherwise there is nothing to cite. If you can find some reliable reviews then we can add more positive stuff. I honestly tried to find positive stuff to add but besides the one review about costumes and such I couldn't find any. I merely summed up the actual reviews that were on the site. Konman72 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I think I was just in a mad state of mind when I saw that it was changed, lol. Can we keep the "some people think this is Emmerich's best work to date" thing up there?? Promus Kaa 04:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source for it? If so then certainly, I actually did scour the positive reviews looking for some nice quotes but most had been taken down or something. Perhaps you will have better luck though. Konman72 04:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Acclaim video game

This subject is extremely difficult to find information on, and I think an entry for it should defintely be made. A link to it from here would greatly add to the quality of the information on this page. I think another page for the StarGate pinball game by Gottlieb should also be created. --Promus Kaa 03:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, and here are the only things I can find about either. I have the game, but have never played it so I wouldn't be qualified to write an article about the Acclaim game, feel free to if you have. Konman72 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Man, I WISH I had the Acclaim game, but I don't. Is your copy an electronic version that you could just send over e-mail?? Or...do you have the actual, physical game that you (as an SG-1 fan and a...not-so-fan of the film) wouldn't mind parting with?? I know nothing about the game, but since it's film-related I would love to get one. --72.81.26.111 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have the Genesis version, but sorry I'm not willing to part with it. It is a part of Stargate history lol. Konman72 18:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3 hour version and sequels

"An issue of "SCI-FI Universe" June 1995, Talks about the original rough cut of Stargate that was over 3 hours long." http://imdb.com/title/tt0111282/alternateversions

This information should be added. I really would like to see this version.

Furthermore there are two sequels announced. The sequels will follow the first movie and ignore the TV series. I think that is a really good idea.

The sequels were not "announced", Dean Devlin said he wants to do them, nothing more. There is little to no chance of them ever getting made so only a mention is deserved at the moment. As for the alternate version, sounds good, somebody can add that if they want. Konman72 06:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

director's cut

[4] [5] [6] [7]

There's a director's cut? What's the difference?

[8] says: The Director's cut is always welcome, because it gives us the true original conceived version, however it doesn't go much further away from the theatrical version (you have both of them on this DVD)..

So it seems that the "ultimate edition" has bunches of extra footage, and the director's cut has both the original and a slightly-tweaked version. But I'm not quite sure what the differences are. =/ -- Sy / (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Most significant thing I can remember is that the longer version includes the discovery of a fossilised Jaffa (or whatever you want to call it) underneath the stargate, and O'Neil observing this fossil in the Creek Mountain complex. This obviously affects one's interpretation later scenes where he is dealing with Ra &co. directly. Leushenko (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

External "Differences" Page

This is really starting to piss me off. There should not be a seperate page for that, and the page is in fact being considered for deletion. There is no reason that inclusion should prevail, and the "Differences" information be added to the film's page. --Promus Kaa 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it separate my self. I believe it functions better. Matthew 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I also like it separate. Two main reasons: firstly it reduces the amount of minutiae crammed into an already large article and allows it to grow to its own size, and secondly it's directly related to both Stargate (film) and Stargate SG-1 so this way there's no chance of it being included in the "wrong" one. Bryan Derksen 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel's lecture

When Daniel is trying to explain about the date of the prymids being wrong in his lecture, a man from the audience sarcastily asks "Who built them then? People from Atlantis?" Could this be a early reference to an idea of Stargate Atlantis? Think outside the box 10:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's coincidence. Devlin and Emmerich had completely different ideas on where to go with the series than the TV people, and I suspect even the TV people didn't know they'd be doing an Atlantis series until a year or two before it started. Cute bit of information, though. Bryan Derksen 15:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? I thought he said aliens? Leushenko (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I just finished seeing the film a few minuites ago. In the commentary, the director seems very indifferent to the TV series; only mentioned it once in passing, and only to say that he was not involved.
The Atlantis reference is valid. I think someone also mentioned "men from space", but Daniel very specifically responded "I don't know" when he was asked "Who built them?" LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First official movie Web site

The trivia section claims that Stargate had the first official movie Web site; it does not cite any source, nor give a date. I noticed today that Memory Alpha claims instead that Star Trek: Generations had the first official movie Web site: [9]. Their claim includes a date at which it went online. I'm wondering how one would go about verifying the Stargate claim. JKing 19:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That Wiki states that the Star Trek web-site was created on October 28, but IMDB lists Stargates release date as the same (October 28). Not definitive, true, we definitely need to find a date for Stargates web-site creation, but even just going by this info I'd label Stargate as the first, since its web-site went up prior to its theatrical release. JBK405 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs

Does this sequence of hieroglyphs really mean anything? (I'm not asking if they mean what Daniel alleged them to mean. For some reason, I doubt that Ancient Egyptean had the word "Stargate"...) - Sikon 05:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

O'Neill not O'Neil

I was wondering when the change in spelling of O'Neill occurs. In the SG-1 TV series the character Jack O'Neill makes several references that his is spelled with "two L's" not 1. Throughtout the entire article here is is spelled with a single L instead of 2. I was just wondering why this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.63.4 (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The change was made going from the movie to the TV series. See Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1. Just why they made the name changes.... More likely carelessness than anything thought through.
—wwoods 02:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, O'Neill says "Two L's, not one" in SG-1. He also says that there's another O'Neil with only one L who has no humor at all — it's a reference to the movie. Nevertheless, O'Neil in the movie and O'Neill in SG-1 are supposed to be the same character; it's either a continuity error or a retcon. - Sikon 10:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I have read it was an error they decided to keep as a retcon, as they came across more and more. Yet another reason the why the StarGate vs Stargate continuum war continues. Which may also explain the many SG:1 episodes with parallel dimensions & multiple universes. darrennie (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"StarGate vs Stargate continuum war"? What? As for alternate universes, SG-1 doesn't occur in an alternate universe compared to the movie - it's a direct sequel. The changes SG-1 introduced have overwritten the events of the movie where the two conflict - so, for example, the Stargate has retroactively always been in Cheyenne Mountain, not Creek Mountain, despite what the movie says. - Sikon (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So if I put in my DVD of Stargate the movie, it won't say Creek Mtn, but Cheyenne Mtn? Uh, I don't THINK so! Just face it , the producers of SG-1 just did their own thing, for what ever reason. They made changes to the original because they could - they were working for the rights owners, and they had the authority to change anything they wanted, like changing the alien into a grub worm, which the movie flatly refutes. Perhapes the producers of SG-1 were arrogant (many TV producers are), and just didn't care what the movie did, they were going their own thing because they liked their way better, or didn't even bother to watch the orginal that carefully, if at all. (A good example of this kind of arrogance is Ron D. Moore, who "re-imagined" BG without even bothering to watch the original until far after his new concept was fixed.) THey may have just been careless, and simply not careing if they made mistakes. I've always got the impression from what I've seen of the SG-1 documentaries that they simply made changes to suit their purposes, and part of that may have just been a desire to distinguish what they were doing from the movie. Do worry too much about why, or which universe is the real one - Truth is, neither one is real anyway, so what difference does it actually make.
One observation: As die-hard SF fan since I was a pre-teen, I had watched SG-1 several years before I had seen the movie. I never really cared for the show that much,a nd I let that keep me from watching the movie for several more years. When I actully did see the movie, I loved it - I couldn't believe how different from the series it really was! It's still one of my favorite movies, and I re-watch it about once or twice a year. Much of what I love about the film was changed for SG-1, and those changed areas were part of why I didn't really like SG-1 to begin with. But that's my tastes - everyone has there one. But please, rember everyone has there the right to there own tastes too, even if they differ than ours. Telling other people the version they prefer is worse than the one you prefer is fine - we all do it. But I don't think telling them their version is considered apochryphal (my words, but that is basically what "the Stargate has retroactively always been in Cheyenne Mountain, not Creek Mountain, despite what the movie says" means) is really going to get your arguments very far. - BillCJ (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Stargate franchise is controlled by MGM. If they say (for example) that Stargate Infinity is non-canon, then it's non-canon, and fan opinions are irrelevant. Similarly, if they say that the "real" Stargate universe is the SG-1/Atlantis canon, then, by gosh, it is. This article should say "O'Neil" because it's about the movie — but articles about in-universe topics from Stargate should list it as "O'Neill" because SG-1 overrode it. - Sikon (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stargate_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1050726592"