Stargate episode 200!!!

NullAshton · #1 August 26th, 2006, 04:28 PM

Makes perfect sense. A channel which has the abbreviation for Science Fiction in it's name is moving away from Science Fiction.

Shouldn't they at least change the name of the channel to Reality Channel, at least? Or the "Real" Channel?

Wade · #2 August 26th, 2006, 05:06 PM

Remember when MTV meant Music Television? Look at the nonesense it is now; for the shallow teenagers. Like mentioned, it can be relabeled "Reality Channel" although there is nothing real about it. People are not real when there are known cameras watching. I hate all that ignorance.
SciFi Channel is sliding towards this.

narf poit chez BOOM · #3 August 26th, 2006, 08:04 PM

I blame music in movies for a number of stupid movies.

Why? Becuase when you have music, your actors don't have to work to show which are important scenes, to convey emotion to the viewer, to give a sense of life to the movie.

Just play the appropriate music and instant atmosphere. A lot of older movies are both very good, very nuanced and have no music.

How nuanced are modern movies?

NullAshton · #4 August 26th, 2006, 08:31 PM

Stargate was good with not relying on music. Stargate kind of counts, since it's in widescreen and has the 'feel' of a movie.

Atrocities · #5 August 27th, 2006, 11:07 AM

Man I was pissed when I wrote that post. To be honest I am still a bit upset over how f***ing dumb those idiots over at Sci-Fi channel appear to be. You don't drop your #4 rated show and replace it with crappy double "D" back yard, lets break out the video camera, movies!

Hell my nephews could make better movies than some that have recently been on Sci-Fi.

No effort at all is going into the movies, horrible production values, bad acting, rotten scripts, even worse dialog. Its like a Lucas script feast without the budge or SFX, or Steven Spielburg's (sp) to back them up.

Xrati · #6 August 27th, 2006, 11:47 AM

Lack of compitition drives most companies to believe that they can do whatever they want. Thus the Sci-Fi channels competitor is?????

WELL, what do you know! There is none! Who'd of Thunk it.....

Babylon 5 follow up shows would still be on the air if they (studio management) just left M.J.S. alone and let him do what he needed to do. They played the 'Ranger' series out of order because they didn't like the way the opening story was (not exciting enough). The man wrote one of the best Sci-Fi series and he didn't know what he was doing? (as AT would say "that's F'd UP!) Now you know why SG-1 is going bye bye.

Atrocities · #7 August 27th, 2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Thus the Sci-Fi channels competitor is

Cable access I would say. No, the home made movies on Cable Access even have a better production value than those on Sci-Fi.

Azselendor · #8 August 27th, 2006, 10:46 PM

SciFi channel made it clear that MGM's license fees was one of the main deciding factors on cancellation - much like how UPN would've cancelled Enterprise in the 3rd and 4th seasons.

Also, SciFi has made it clear that they will use their contract with MGM to prevent any future Stargate SG1 television series.

Renegade 13 · #9 August 28th, 2006, 10:38 PM

Well, with the destruction of the Prometheus and the Korolev, the "fleet" is down to one; the Odyssey

LordAxel · #10 August 29th, 2006, 12:28 AM

Def not a fan of the ori thing. Apperantly they are still trying to find a home for sg-1. I really doubt atlantis can stand on its own without sg-1 as the sg-1 line is quasi interlocked with atlantis. Plus the costs will now likely rise for the atlantis production as its on its own not sharing the lot with sg-1