B5 or BSG

[Al B. Sure!]

I have no interest in Stargate. The movie was horrible and the series (all of them) are based on crap.

Wow

[Al B. Sure!]

The thing with Stargate that makes it so great is that it doesn't take itself too seriously.

Can't embed it but check it. Picture Battlestar Galactica or something having scenes like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37TtMzeV-9I

That's from an episode of SG-1 where a movie was being made based on the SG-1 team and one of the executives wanted to have a younger, edgier cast than the 'real' team.

[Al B. Sure!]

Or this scene, with puppets!



No fan-made thing. That was a from an actual episode.

Stargate

[EPW]

I hope you're trolling.

[EPW]

I can't stand the actor turnover in B5, and the acting is better overall in BSG. But BSG does have a much better story.

Gah! I meant to say B5 has the better story! Forgive me.

[self biased]

I hope you're trolling.

he better be. the rate at which he misses the point is terrifying.

[Al B. Sure!]

Stargate SG-1

[EPW]

Look, I like MacGyver as much as anyone, but even he couldn't save that show.

[Al B. Sure!]

For a while, Stargate was the only non-sports television show I watched. I love Stargate.

You all don't know what you were missing.

[Al B. Sure!]

Seriously. One blockbuster film, a 10-season series, a 5-season spin-off, a third on-going series, an animated series, and two direct-to-dvd movies?

Stargate is too successful to be total crap. Far more successful than Babylon 5 and probably more so than Battlestar Galactica.

I notice Battlestar Galactica didn't last 10 seasons

[EPW]

I think this sums it up rather nicely:

In his review for the pilot episode "Children of the Gods" in 1997, Will Joyner of The New York Times considered Stargate SG-1 a "challenging, if derivative, mix" that is "more than a Stargate [feature film] fan might expect but certainly less than one would hope for." He had a mixed opinion about the cast and was disturbed by SG-1's use of visual shock tactics to make up for its lower television budget.^[89] Reviewing the same episode, Variety's Tony Scott criticized that "superficial characters wander through their roles without stirring a modicum of conviction" in a show that is "essentially for young people". He mocked that the wooden acting, "pedestrian writing, pulp-mag plotting, shopworn characters, hackneyed dialogue [...] and Mario Azzopardi's broad direction will all undoubtedly delight billions and billions."^[131] Many critics responded negatively to the gratuitous use of sexual implication and female nudity in the pilot episode, which according to Wright had been filmed on Showtime's insistence despite his vocal opposition and was cut from the pilot's 2009 direct-to-DVD version.^[83]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_SG-1#Critical_reception

[self biased]

I notice Battlestar Galactica didn't last 10 seasons

didn't the creators consciously end the series before it jumped the shark?

[Al B. Sure!]

I think this sums it up rather nicely:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargat...ical_reception

Who cares what critics say? The proof is in the pudding. Stargate has been a very successful brand.

Really, like I said, the fact that Stargate doesn't take itself too seriously is one of its strengths. There's been plenty of gags, jokes, parodies of sci-fi including Stargate itself, etc. throughout the series' runs. Also, because it's episodic, you can jump into almost any episode without being lost. It's like Star Trek but better.

Stargate

[Al B. Sure!]

Look, I like MacGyver as much as anyone, but even he couldn't save that show.

By the way, Richard Dean Anderson wasn't the only Stargate actor who was on MacGyver. The actor who plays Teal'c was on this episode:

[Hauldren Collider]

Dancing with the Stars has been a very successful brand. Successful clearly means nothing.

Firefly was a very unsuccessful brand. Unsuccessful clearly means nothing.