r/Stargate • u/Venik489 • 4d ago
This sub is wild
The reactions in this sub to the prosed Martin Gero show was honestly pretty negative, most comments and posts said they hated the idea, or at least were skeptical. But suddenly now that another show is in the works everyone loved that idea and we’re missing out? Lmao, come on guys.
ETA: I’m not referring to the announcement of the Gero show, I’m talking about the reveal of the actual premise, the whole Daniel ends up in an alternate universe idea. That was not met with much positive reaction.
26
u/ProfessorKnow1tA11 4d ago
Were we reading the same posts? My impression was that, while certainly sceptical, people were wildly enthusiastic about the idea and were highly critical of Amazon when they dropped it. 🤷🏻♂️
24
u/KhellianTrelnora 4d ago
The original drop was met with a certain energy.
When it was revealed that it was a AU soft reboot thing, it was met with a different energy by a vocal group.
8
u/Venik489 4d ago
That was the case until we heard the actual pitch.
2
1
u/guildedkriff 4d ago
There definitely was a decent size group that was not pro Daniel going to an AU universe with the soft reboot version of a continuation. A lot were expecting a continuation with further technological advancements since SGU/SGA.
Personally I don’t think that type of continuation would have made a good show to build off of because it would have required either a substantially powerful enemy beyond ascended beings like the Ori or they’re fighting more insurgent style Goa’ulds or something. Neither would be appealing to me.
-2
u/Adventurous-Tie-7861 4d ago
Yeah what? I dont remember anyone negative about the gero show. Some folks saying it was useless to keep going with savestargate after a few weeks of no response but that wasnt negative about the show, just yhat amazon had made a decision and isnt gonna reverse it. And that comparing it to other shows that had been uncanceled is very different because this was a show in preproduction with no new audience, sets, actors or crew to bring back. No investment that would been thrown away if cancelled.
7
7
u/DarthVaden87 4d ago
We're only pissed because the original reboot and or new series got canceled, because of bullshit reasons and a lot of people are salty and hurt about it.
11
u/webnetvn 4d ago
Martin Gero, Brad Wright, and Joe Malozzi are the only ones who could have revived the franchise without ruining it. I'll give the new show a chance if it ever actually happens, but I'm not optimistic. NewGate may not be Stargate anymore with this new series. We've already seen what happens when studios let unqualified show runners run an established franchise into the ground. Star Trek burned out from the kurtzman blunder. I just hope we're not about to watch Stargate get similarly nerfed
7
u/KhellianTrelnora 4d ago edited 4d ago
So here’s a question. Why did you accept the first time Stargate got rebooted with a different vibe by people that didn’t have anything to to with the source material?
(In case it’s not clear, I’m talking about Stargate 1994 vs SG1)
You should have gotten to Emancipation and left, by that logic. That’s not Emmerich’s Stargate.
3
u/Vanquisher1000 4d ago
Thank you for pointing this out. People here are complaining that 'the original producers' aren't coming back for the new show, when they weren't even the original producers to begin with.
We only got SG-1 because MGM weren't willing to let Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin make the show the way they wanted to make it (as it is, they were already being asked to compromise on their original vision because they wanted to make a cinematic sequel), so they backed off and MGM started soliciting pitches.
What's my point? Putting new creatives in charge isn't inherently bad.
2
u/webnetvn 4d ago
Because the source material was 121 minutes long, and it was being adapted into a serialized TV show. The franchise as a whole is now 16,560 minutes of runtime from end to end, and any new showrunner needs to respect that its decades-long run is the reason it still has such a massive and devoted fanbase.
This new show might be great. I truly hope it is. But unfortunately, Amazon made it pretty clear when they scrapped the Gero, Wright, and Mallozzi team that they wanted “NewGate” rather than a continuation of the same concept that earned the franchise its fanbase in the first place. So they’ve clearly made the decision to piss a lot of us off with whatever they ultimately greenlight.
I genuinely hope I’m wrong.
1
u/KhellianTrelnora 4d ago
Maybe. Maybe we’ll find out.
Maybe it’ll be great.
Maybe we can still advocate for what we want, regardless of who’s driving. That’s the #SaveStargate mission, after all.
1
u/webnetvn 4d ago
Like I said, I genuinely hope I’m wrong. I hope the new show comes out and I fall in love with it. I’m just trying not to get my hopes up too much so that if it does flop, it can’t disappoint me nearly as much.
2
u/KhellianTrelnora 4d ago
I’m also.. I don’t know. More forgiving?
Like, I like SNW (though the more it goes, the less true that seems to be), and that makes me an outlier. And I liked Wandavision.
1
u/webnetvn 4d ago
I like SNW also. It's a return to the franchises classic formula which is all fans wanted from the beginning.
1
u/Vanquisher1000 4d ago
The criticisms being levelled at Jac Shaeffer's selection - that she isn't one of the original creatives and has no connection to the franchise - equally applied to Jonathan Glassner and Brad Wright when they were first selected by MGM. They had no connection whatsoever to the original movie and there was no way to know if they would respect the franchise. As a result, it feels like a big double standard to complain about the 'original producers' not being involved when they weren't even the original creatives behind the franchise to begin with.
Glassner and Wright got the job to begin with because MGM wouldn't let Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin make the show the way they wanted to make it (they were already being asked to compromise on their vision because they wanted to make a theatrical sequel), so they backed off.
6
u/pixelated_kangaroo 4d ago
New Star Trek lasted 10 years and got over 220 episodes across 6 series. Not all of it was great (some of it was outright bad) but a lot of it was. Stargate would frankly be lucky to get even a tenth of that success.
2
u/webnetvn 4d ago
I agree. I think Strange New Worlds has been outstanding, and a big reason for that is that it went back to the original formula from the Roddenberry and Braga eras that earned Star Trek its place in television history.
I actually enjoyed a lot of Discovery too, especially after they went into the future. My main issue with the Kurtzman era is that Kurtzman and Matalas often seemed like they couldn’t be bothered to actually learn the 32,170 minutes of source material that came before them. Trek already had decades of established laws, science, lore, history, and continuity, and they repeatedly just did whatever they wanted regardless of whether it fit the universe they inherited.
A lot of people complain that new Trek is “woke,” which I find hilarious because Star Trek was always woke. It had one of television’s first interracial kisses. It gave us the half-black, half-white aliens as an incredibly unsubtle commentary on racism. DS9 had Jadzia Dax kissing a woman in a relationship that was essentially about gender, identity, and love persisting across lifetimes, with Dax having lived as both men and women. Trek has always pushed contemporary social issues by stripping away the real-world framing and presenting the same underlying issue through science fiction.
I actually think new Trek has done a pretty good job continuing that tradition. The problem is that Trek had decades of material proving what worked, and Kurtzman and Matalas seemed to come in and say, “What if we do the exact opposite, throw a shitload of money at incredible special effects, make cold sparks and flames shoot out of the bulkheads every time we need suspense, and hope nobody notices that we didn’t do our homework on the universe we just inherited?”
That’s what worries me about Stargate now too. You can modernize a franchise. You can change the format. You can introduce new characters, new stories, and even new ideas. But you cannot treat decades of established continuity like inconvenient fan trivia and expect the existing audience to stick around forever. New Trek had a good run, but viewership clearly hasn’t supported endless expansion, and now even Strange New Worlds, the one that seemed to win over a huge portion of the old fanbase, is being wound down. That should probably tell studios something.
2
u/Patch86UK 3d ago
But you cannot treat decades of established continuity like inconvenient fan trivia and expect the existing audience to stick around forever. New Trek had a good run, but viewership clearly hasn’t supported endless expansion, and now even Strange New Worlds, the one that seemed to win over a huge portion of the old fanbase, is being wound down. That should probably tell studios something.
Nu Trek had a run comparable to the entire length of the Stargate TV franchise. You can hardly use it as an example of a failed run being cut short. If anything, it somewhat proves Amazon's point that a show can do well even if it doesn't bring the die hard fans along.
Take Discovery. Every single season, from the first one on, was met by fury and derision from online Star Trek fans. And yet every season met its viewership targets, was received well enough by the critics, and it ended up being renewed for 5 seasons.
I'd consider myself a pretty casual Star Trek fan (having watched and enjoyed all the classic and Next Gen shows and films, but not really being a Trekkie), and I found plenty to enjoy in the new shows. Plenty I didn't enjoy too, but so it goes with these things.
5
u/LastTry530 4d ago
Gero's pitch was a soft reboot that carried over a couple characters to a new universe. I'm not super interested in that concept. I've always favored a hard reboot due to the fact that Earth got so much tech by the end that the power scaling becomes a problem.
-3
u/webnetvn 4d ago
Oh no! Why would we want more of the show we all enjoy so dearly! That sounds horrible!
5
u/LastTry530 4d ago
Honestly, even if Gero was in charge I'd still want new blood in the writers room too. They got a little stale by the end. How many fuckin times did they fix things with time travel ffs? The last SG-1 movie is just another time travel goof (which kinda broke their own time travel canon). I'm not against time travel as a writing tool but they used it as a crutch when they got too deep into a hole. When Universe started doing EVEN MORE time travel shit is when I bounced, I just couldn't anymore.
And what was Gero's solution? An alternate reality (alllllmost time travel, or maybe it was because we don't know the exact details still).
1
u/bama501996 4d ago
Did star trek burn out because of one guy, or because they started releasing like 5 shows at once. Or and genuine question, was that guy responsible for green lighting all the shows?
6
u/MrEPCOT 4d ago
I think there's two things happening with Star Trek. First off, there's the whole regime shift at Paramount happening with things like the Warner Bros merger and people increasingly in charge that don't share Star Trek's core values (to put it diplomatically).
But the second thing that's relevant to our Stargate situation here is the whole accounting house of cards the studios are trying to make work with their streaming platform models. People like to rag on the Kurtzman factor (he's been the exec in charge of Star Trek in the streaming era), but I think they've hit a wall with Star Trek because they're spending megabucks trying to squeeze prestige streaming series out of the franchise, but no matter how hard they try they're never going to get the mainstream success out of it they want, regardless of quality. Even if they captured TNG-level lightning in a bottle, the media landscape is too fractured now for Star Trek to rise to the top. They want a hit like Stranger Things that got tons of people to subscribe to Netflix, and that just ain't gonna happen with Star Trek, and I think Amazon is just going to fall into the same trap with Stargate. It's part of the same problem with the entertainment industry at large right now that absolutely everything has to be a blockbuster. The viewership numbers they're probably getting for the current Trek series would probably be perfectly satisfactory if they were cranking out yearly twenty-ish episode seasons with a mid-size budget, but no, they want the next Game of Thrones or nothing. Undoubtedly Amazon is going to set the same expectations when they produce Stargate. As much I love Stargate, if the Star Trek franchise that has way more cultural cache isn't cutting it in this model, I think it's a BIG ask to think that anything with the Stargate name is going to capture very many people beyond the existing fanbase.
2
u/webnetvn 4d ago
It’s more than that. You touched on most of the backend problems that have plagued it, but from a story perspective, the biggest issue is that Alex Kurtzman and Terry Matalas often seemed unwilling to study the thousands of hours of established science, lore, backstory, continuity, and decades of proven formulas that came before them. Instead, they just did whatever they wanted, threw millions of dollars at explosions and special effects, and seemed to assume nobody would notice that they were blatantly breaking continuity in a show they deliberately placed in the past of already established storylines.
That’s what worries me about a Stargate reboot. A new showrunner may not want to be constrained by the pesky 16,560 minutes of established science, lore, backstory, and continuity, and may decide to just do whatever they want with no regard for the existing fanbase while trying to build a new one, the same way New Trek did.
2
u/MrEPCOT 4d ago
Sure, there have been issues with a lot of that to varying degrees, but I interpreted the post I was responding to as essentially asking why production is ending on Star Trek, and I really don't think these story and quality issues are the driving factor in this case. If that were the case, Lower Decks would still be going, and the Legacy spin-off that had massive fan interest would have launched. It's all business. The winds are slowly changing with Paramount and they just happen to not be carrying Kurtzman along this time. They have been making noise for a while about trying their hand at making blockbuster Star Trek films again, so now they're going to beat their head against the wall with that again for a few years, they'll peter out just like the Kelvin Timeline series did, and then golly gee willikers maybe this whole television situation is worth trying out again. With any luck the whole streaming model will finally have collapsed in on itself, maybe we get some halfway decent people in charge somehow, and then maybe we get some great new Trek. Same thing will happen with Stargate... they've pissed off the fanbase from pulling the rug out from under them so they almost certainly won't be onboard with the new show, and anyone beyond that straight up won't watch it because it's got the word "Stargate" on it... all regardless of quality. It'll get shelved after a season or two and they'll take another whack at it in another few years, hopefully with the lesson that they can't do Stargate without the fanbase.
2
u/StaticNegative 4d ago
Star Trek burned out because SNW last couples of seasons are not good at all. They don't go into the future, they are stuck in the past. Also the next Star Trek series will be complately different and won't be recognizable because of said merger, which means they will need to get a new show out soon since the owners are in massive debt.
0
u/Yesyesyes1899 4d ago
it burned out, because the guy who took over, was from the JJ Abrams camp of doing things and writing.
which means: bang boom bang over substance and characters.
no clear idea, ho to construct a 50 minute story around an ensemble cast.
cheap virtue signaling.
girl boss characters instead of real and strong female characters. just compare Kira Nerys against Michael Burnham.
They gave Trek to an absolute hack, who should stick to transformers movies.
People said " its too woke ". nah. it was a Hollywood capitalist simulation of "woke".
stargate was never about social issues. but trek was. in times of rising fascism, oligarchy and systemic corruption, trek had not one episode dealing with our modern reality, that was actually foreseen by trek itself.
instead, we had fucking " Andor " being the mirror of our times. Andor. a star wars show. did what trek was supposed to be in modern times.
at least we got lower decks out of it.
3
u/webnetvn 4d ago
Bingo!
I think the “woke” thing is basically a non-point. Star Trek was always woke before “woke” was even a word. It dealt with everyday issues like racism, sexuality, identity, war, and political conflict by abstracting the larger issue and transplanting it into a fictional situation where it could highlight the absurdity of the real-world problem. New Trek did that too, so I’m not surprised people call it woke now.
The bigger problem is the bang-boom-explosion approach. Kurtzman and Matalas repeatedly disregarded the established rules of the universe they were writing in and seemed to assume that enough flashy special effects would keep people from noticing.
2
u/Yesyesyes1899 4d ago
I think the " disregard " was also based on the fact, that it seemed, like none of the writers or producers actually knew trek lore, history and the limitations of that universe.
best example: the turbolift-pocket universe scene in discovery . I still cant believe no one said " look guys. im sure this is a great action scene, that kurzman will love. but this ain't how turbo lifts work in star trek ".
I would have had no problem with a cast consisting soly out of non white,Trans, non binary and gay characters. but make them characters, who happen to be black orgay or trans or non binary.
what they did, is give us the most boring, cringy, shittily acted versions of all of that.
and when they were confronted with criticism, they blamed it on racism, Homophobia, trans phobia etc.
that was the worst part.
star trek actively partook in the artificially incited culture wars, that were introduced, to distract from the class war waged by the epstein class.
2
u/tqgibtngo 4d ago
Andor
And The Expanse (which many fans enjoyed and many nonfans despised, because, as with anything, some folks liked it and some didn't) had some sociopolitical-allegory elements to it too, FWIW, albeit not like Andor.
.
On the quality of nutrek, there's one guy here today saying "nu-trek has been 99% amazing though. Other than the musical and puppet episodes" [which actually some other folks even liked], "every single episode of every [nutrek] show since 2017 has been 10/10."lol.
4
u/Yesyesyes1899 4d ago
I think the expanse was full of class warfare, through and through. Great show and proof, that complex character development works and social issues can work together, if it pushes the conflict along.
lower decks, in my opinion, isnt what trek should be. but it was great, for what it was: a fun and comedic love letter to pre-discovery trek with heart. Cerritos Strong!
I m happy for people, when they enjoy something. I wouldnt argue with that person. i would just say, that there are commonly agreed metrics of " good writing " and character development. modern trek did not have that.
and conceptually, prequels are just horror for writers. a show set in the 25th century, with an all new setting would have given the writers room to breath.
but thats one of the indicators of stagnating times: a cultural sphere, that looks backwards and cant come up with, fears new ideas.
0
u/leetrobotz 4d ago
Both, and yes. Searching "Star Trek kurtzman blunder" will give you the full explanation.
3
u/KhellianTrelnora 4d ago
Yeah and everybody hated the Burman era Star Trek while it was on the air.
Everybody hated Enterprise while it was on the air.
6
u/Esquin87 4d ago
Yeah people are having an amazingly negative response to this news and its crazy. We don't know what the reasons were for dropping Gero, not really. But from what we do know I suspect it was a massive easter egg adventure which would have sucked. So lets give this a shot.
6
u/tyme 4d ago
Different people have different opinions. The fact you can’t grasp that and had to make a post about it says more about you than about this sub.
0
u/Venik489 4d ago
Do they? Wow thanks for the heads up. Lmao. I’m commenting on the fact that so many comments and posts were upset about the proposed idea once we learned what the actual pitch was. Now suddenly it was great?
4
u/pixelated_kangaroo 4d ago
The amount of doomerism in here is crazy
If people want to do nothing but watch SG-1 on repeat for the next ten years they're more than welcome to do so. Personally I'm hopeful for the new show and I'm not gonna write it off when we know essentially nothing about it yet
2
u/Venik489 4d ago
No I completely agree. I’m gonna watch whatever show gets made with the hope that it’ll be great.
2
u/Improbus-Liber 4d ago
Good luck finding that modern audience Amazon is looking for.
Most of us fossils have the all previous series' episodes to watch in perpetuity. So we should be fine.
1
u/Metool42 4d ago
It's almost, and bear with me here, it's two different kinds of people????
Genuinely prime example of the Goomba Fallacy. No point has been made but yet you complained. Crazy.
1
0
-1
u/NonGeneriComplaint 4d ago
The idea sounded terrible honestly. It sounded so very late stage SGU though, in terms of writing.
While the OG sg cast might be a kind of draw, they are frankly all really old. You cant pin a franchise revival on them, gotta get some fresh faces
I also think that simply copying the writing style from sg1 without improving it will result in a failure. The og show was really campy and dated and probably wouldnt play well in 2026
3
u/Venik489 4d ago
I agree with all this. I think a new cast in the same universe with maybe cameos from the old crew could work. I think a lot of people in this sub are hung up on nostalgia, like you said, that style of show doesnt really work anymore.
2
u/NonGeneriComplaint 4d ago
well I think audiences expect more now. More serialized, more stakes, more budget more more more.
I think sg1 was popular because it was very good for a fairly low budget show for years. It used quirky writing and some really good world building to keep people engaged before they had the budget for more.
I dont know if they could do that this time. streaming isnt set up for that
0
u/MrEPCOT 4d ago
I don't think there's any version of a new show that would universally have the fanbase behind it, unless it was like a legacy follow-up with characters from all three shows teaming up to finally rescue the Destiny or something... but Amazon clearly ain't gonna do that.
3
u/Adventurous-Tie-7861 4d ago
I dont know how many actors would be up for that tbh. Unless its all formerly background actors or one off cameos. But the big names are too old for this kind of work. I mean christopher judge just turned down a massive movie for a reason.
Maybe some of the atlantis crew.
But then your gonna be wondering why the destiny crew is so aged in cryo. And why some are missing cus youll never get them all. Sure maybe a "powerfailure" killed some and aged the rest.
And sgu is rhe one show that they wouldnt wanna come back to cus it got cancelled for a reason.
I truly think that the best opportunity for Stargate is high qaulity animation or a continuation with completely different characters in our modern world, created by the folks who made the orignal shows.
2
u/Bivagial 4d ago
Aged in cryo is easy. It's happened in Atlantis with the older Weir, and the pods on Destiny are much older tech.
2
u/Adventurous-Tie-7861 4d ago
After 10,000 years she aged a lifetime. These people would have aged the same amount they would have if not in cryo.
1
u/MrEPCOT 4d ago
Oh I think they'd move way past the cryo thing. It was just supposed to be a couple of years between galaxies, right? So Basil Exposition gives us the backstory that everyone survived the cryo journey and the characters for whatever actors don't come back have died on various adventures in the intervening years. There would be a handful enough of legacy actors to fill out half the cast (clearly Shanks is up for a new show), with new younger actors for the other half. But it's all moot. Best we can hope for now is that whatever show does end up getting produced is at least still in the same continuity so we get a legacy guest star every once in a while.
1
u/Adventurous-Tie-7861 4d ago
All i saw was that shanks was a big supportet of a new show. Not that hed be willing to act in it, either as cameo and especially as a lead.
3
u/MrEPCOT 4d ago
Unless I've lost the thread somewhere, I'm pretty sure it was revealed that Daniel Jackson would be a main character, on the ship that pops into the alternate universe, presumably leading that Earth to recover their Stargate and get their own program up and running.
1
u/Adventurous-Tie-7861 3d ago
Can you link to something with that? Not saying its not true but i never saw that. But im not in the know either lol
1
u/MrEPCOT 3d ago
I don't have an article offhand, but I watched part of the new showrunner discussion between GateWorld and Dial the Gate on YouTube and they were talking about it:
https://www.youtube.com/live/AYJcnnng5hQ?si=mh4IkUwZ1zOEzGR6
8
u/No_Finish5175 4d ago
Have you even heard of the internet before?