Stargate boring???
Cassandra Kenfield
movies I have ever seen..tired efx ( one more morph and I thought I would start
laughing out loud) and no plot..no character development, lots of dangling
potential plot lines and I watched the fight part with the ff on.
I am the only person who felt this way about this thing??????
Attila Bodis
: I thought "Stargate" ( which I just saw on video) was one of the most boring
Nope. I hated every moment of it.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Attila Bodis (bo...@fas.harvard.edu) Phone: (617) 493-1636 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
rog...@delphi.com
>I thought "Stargate" ( which I just saw on video) was one of the most boring
>movies I have ever seen..tired efx ( one more morph and I thought I would start
>laughing out loud) and no plot..no character development, lots of dangling
>potential plot lines and I watched the fight part with the ff on.
>I am the only person who felt this way about this thing??????
far too fast speed. "Stargate" was not in-depth enough; several new characters,
organisms, customs, and concepts are introduced during the movie and are
accepted with stunning ease, as if all the other characters are mesmerized
by slight apathy.
Scott A. H. Ruggels
former group, but then again, I am very suceptible to eye candy.
Visualists liked it, but Literary (y'know plot & Character types) hated
it. At least that's my take on it.
Scott
Didier
It made me the same ipression first. Exiting the theater i was under the power of the images, but as my mind came back i was a little disapointed by the story, wich is a bit light.
But a least it made me cool for the duration anyway. All movies cannot pretend as much!
Avoid normal situations.
: Well, it seems that people either loved, or hated it. I was in the
: Visualists liked it, but Literary (y'know plot & Character types) hated
: it. At least that's my take on it.
IMHO, it was a flawed but good SF picture. I picked up some of the science
errors (and some *really* ludicrous plot turns; just what the hell did those
alien bozos *think* James Spader was going to *really* do with that weapon?)
while seeing it, and realized there were others from the analysis it received
on this newsgroup... but, all told, between the appealing lead performances,
the *very* accomplished production design and FX work (a $55 million picture
with no big stars can pull that sort of thing :-) ), and its success in giving
one a real sense of... adventure... that many other movies only attempt made
it worthwhile.
--
alt.flame Special Forces: When they absolutely, positively have to be spanked
off the net overnight.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words cause permanent damage."
-- Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian), _Talk Radio_
Vivien Osborne
CK>From: Cassandra_Kenfield@maccomw (Cassandra Kenfield)
CK>I thought "Stargate" ( which I just saw on video) was one of the most
CK>boring
CK>movies I have ever seen..tired efx ( one more morph and I thought I
CK>would start
CK>laughing out loud) and no plot..no character development, lots of
CK>dangling
CK>potential plot lines and I watched the fight part with the ff on.
CK>I am the only person who felt this way about this thing??????
Not the only one Cassandra I found the whole thing a great boring joke
directed at 13-15yr old brains...over hyped in NZ as some great wonderous
experience too!! RUBBISH...don't waste your time
VIVIEN N.Z.
---
* WinQwk 2.0 a#0 * Unregistered Evaluation Copy
Geloe
felt this way. All my friends loved it but I just found it lacking in
character. It's funny because right after I saw it, me and the person I
saw it with were both like "Well that was pretty good" and then by the
time we got home our opinions had changed to "You know, that movie wasn't
as good as I thought it would be." By the next day I was like "This movie
was boring, unreal, and gave me a headache!"
fugitive
: errors (and some *really* ludicrous plot turns; just what the hell did those
: alien bozos *think* James Spader was going to *really* do with that weapon?)
: while seeing it, and realized there were others from the analysis it received
: on this newsgroup... but, all told, between the appealing lead performances,
: the *very* accomplished production design and FX work (a $55 million picture
: with no big stars can pull that sort of thing :-) ), and its success in giving
: one a real sense of... adventure... that many other movies only attempt made
: it worthwhile.
Now there's a Stargate opinion that I agree with 150 percent. Finally!
I'm so sick of people picking this movie to pieces. Why can't they sit
back and enjoy a very entertaining movie rather than complaining about
how all the moons were just earth moons of different sizes and how the
science isn't realistic. It's fantasy, for crying out loud! Have a good
time!
Thank you for being so positive. It's really refreshing! :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
: ComputerLink Online Inc. Realms of Despair! :
: (416)233-5410, 232 lines telnet realms.game.org 4000 :
: T1 bandwidth, 300-28,800 bps endless medieval enjoyment! :
: :
: Join our International Teleconference: chat.compulink.com 9000 :
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr.
Heh. That's almost what my reaction was.
Right after the movie, I was saying, "That was a okay flick.
Not great, and full of plotholes, but enjoyable."
By the time I got home, I was telling my roommate, "That was
a disappointing movie."
A couple of days later, I was telling people, "Stargate stinks
big time."
--
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics
graduate student slave, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabe
Wise men still seek Christ. | Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip?
And I shall shed my light over dark evil, for darkness cannot stand the light...
Martin Young
>I agree with you Cassandra and vivien. I too was wondering if anyone else
>felt this way. All my friends loved it but I just found it lacking in
>character. It's funny because right after I saw it, me and the person I
>saw it with were both like "Well that was pretty good" and then by the
>time we got home our opinions had changed to "You know, that movie wasn't
>as good as I thought it would be." By the next day I was like "This movie
>was boring, unreal, and gave me a headache!"
I just gotta add my 2 cents here:
For my part, STARGATE was "ok". Which I define as being "Not really
all that good, but not bad enough to make me absolutely refuse to
watch it when a friend of mine (who loves it dearly) rents it on
video."
For my part, well--I felt at least a little cheated by this film. The
special effects were quite nice, I thought, but the characterization
was Cardboard Cut-Out at best, and the plot itself really did not
engage me. I guess overall, I just found none of the characters--or
their relationships--engaging.
It's odd: I went to see this movie with two friends. One loved it.
One hated it. I'm not sure I feel that strongly about it either way.
--
Thanks for reading!
Martin Young
University of Southern Mississippi
MAR...@DELPHI.COM
Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr.
fugitive <fugi...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> I'm so sick of people picking this movie to pieces. Why can't they sit
Because it wasn't very entertaining.
Besides, by analyzing a movie, one can more fully appreciate its
quality. A good movie appears even better under the light of intelligent
analysis. The same is true of good artwork, or a good novel, or good
music. Unfortunately, by learning to apply critical analysis to one's
entertainment, one also becomes less capable of "enjoying" low-quality
productions. A small loss, IMO.
So basically, you can either be a discriminating viewer who more fully
appreciates high-quality entertainment, or a less discriminating one who
can more readily enjoy movies with clumsy scripts, poor characterization
and shoddy storylines. There are obvious pros and cons to each side.
Personally, I'd choose the former any day.
I also think that the latter does a modest disservice to moviemakers
who strive for cogent and well-written stories. Sure, we can always say
that "it's just a movie!", but I suspect that these moviemakers would
take serious offense at such remarks. After all, they go to great extents
to make high-quality productions. By simply watching with our brains
in low gear, we effectively that we don't care about the quality of their
efforts.
Khaled Yosef Shariff
.>In article <3n485m$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Geloe <ge...@aol.com> wrote:
.>>I agree with you Cassandra and vivien. I too was wondering if anyone else
.>>felt this way. All my friends loved it but I just found it lacking in
.>>character. It's funny because right after I saw it, me and the person I
.>>saw it with were both like "Well that was pretty good" and then by the
.>>time we got home our opinions had changed to "You know, that movie wasn't
.>>as good as I thought it would be." By the next day I was like "This movie
.>>was boring, unreal, and gave me a headache!"
.>
.> Heh. That's almost what my reaction was.
.>
.> Right after the movie, I was saying, "That was a okay flick.
.>Not great, and full of plotholes, but enjoyable."
.>
.> By the time I got home, I was telling my roommate, "That was
.>a disappointing movie."
.>
.> A couple of days later, I was telling people, "Stargate stinks
.>big time."
.>Virgilio "Dean" Velasco
Wow... exactly what happened to myself and my group of friends...
How about that... I remember when the discussion was quite
involved after it came out on this group and that's why I whipped up
that Nitpicker's guide.
Too bad, it could have been really good too, and it wouldn't have
taken much.
excessive trekkie sig follows...
--
\ Khal Shariff / Lt. Commander __,--=====-.__ \ Doc Zimmerman: /
/ 1002 Grant Ave. \ _________,-'_,--'/_-__-___`--._ / "I'm a doctor, \
\Winnipeg, Manitoba/ {====>=_________,._____.--------' \ Mr. Neelix, not /
/ CANADA R3M2A1 \ ``---._____/ USS Voyager / a decorator." \
Michel Hafner
>In article <7983...@news2.compulink.com>,
>fugitive <fugi...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm so sick of people picking this movie to pieces. Why can't they sit
>>back and enjoy a very entertaining movie ...
>
> Because it wasn't very entertaining.
for you. Others see it differently.
> Besides, by analyzing a movie, one can more fully appreciate its
>quality. A good movie appears even better under the light of intelligent
>analysis. The same is true of good artwork, or a good novel, or good
>music. Unfortunately, by learning to apply critical analysis to one's
>entertainment, one also becomes less capable of "enjoying" low-quality
>productions. A small loss, IMO.
> So basically, you can either be a discriminating viewer who more fully
>appreciates high-quality entertainment, or a less discriminating one who
>can more readily enjoy movies with clumsy scripts, poor characterization
>and shoddy storylines. There are obvious pros and cons to each side.
>Personally, I'd choose the former any day.
If you are so discriminating you should also the see the good aspects of the
movie. Mainly fine set decoration, cinematography and one of the most praised
scores in 94.
Then there were some decent special effects, an unusual charismatic appearance
by Jay Davidson (which is not for everyone's taste, I agree) and a fine suppor-
ting performance by Viveca Lindfords who shines in every scene she's in.
All irrelevant? Maybe to you, not to me.
So there.
Now back again to the umpteenth posting about ludicrous coordinate systems and
rotated moons. I'm all ear/eye.
Michel Hafner
Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr.
Michel Hafner <haf...@ifi.unizh.ch> wrote:
>> So basically, you can either be a discriminating viewer who more fully
>>appreciates high-quality entertainment, or a less discriminating one who
>>can more readily enjoy movies with clumsy scripts, poor characterization
>>and shoddy storylines. There are obvious pros and cons to each side.
>>Personally, I'd choose the former any day.
>
>If you are so discriminating you should also the see the good aspects of the
>movie.
I did. In fact, I have often said that there are some positive aspects
of the movie. My point was simply that it's self-defeating to say, "Just
sit back and enjoy. It's only a movie." This is obviously a far cry from
saying that "Stargate" had no redeeming value whatsoever.
If you're to criticize me, criticize me for what I actually said.
James Christopher Ellis
Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr. <v...@giskard.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In article <7983...@news2.compulink.com>,
>fugitive <fugi...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm so sick of people picking this movie to pieces. Why can't they sit
>>back and enjoy a very entertaining movie ...
>
> Because it wasn't very entertaining.
That's _your_ opinion, not everyones.
>
> Besides, by analyzing a movie, one can more fully appreciate its
>quality. A good movie appears even better under the light of intelligent
>analysis. The same is true of good artwork, or a good novel, or good
>music. Unfortunately, by learning to apply critical analysis to one's
>entertainment, one also becomes less capable of "enjoying" low-quality
>productions. A small loss, IMO.
>
> So basically, you can either be a discriminating viewer who more fully
>appreciates high-quality entertainment, or a less discriminating one who
>can more readily enjoy movies with clumsy scripts, poor characterization
>and shoddy storylines. There are obvious pros and cons to each side.
>Personally, I'd choose the former any day.
Personally, I think its a matter of perspective. Stargate had
its flaws, granted, and they _did_ detract from the potential the
film possessed, but were they severe enough to relegate to the
level of a 'clumsy script, poor characterization and shoddy
storyline'? Obviously you hold that this is true.
To express a contrary opinion, I found the concept of this film
(modern individuals encounter alien tyrant who once controlled
ancient human society) to be far beyond the shoddy string of
extraterrestrial bug-hunt films, Steven King made for tv movies
and rogue robot movies made recently. The plot did not always
demonstrate the best of coherence, but it did keep things moving.
Characterization amongst Spader and the grunts was poor, but I
was captivated by the chracter of Ra (whose flaws made sense
according to the situation set up). The special effects made the
movie a visual treat, even if it wasn't as strong on a cerebral
level. Was I entertained? Yes. Do I think it was an exceptionally
well-done film? No. Would I recommend it to a friend whose
expectations do not demand perfection? Yes.
I can empathize with your reasons for disliking it Dean, but
think you are throwing 'the baby out with the bathwater'. There
is an intermediate stage between, say 2001, and Barbarella, and I
think that Stargate fits closer to the former end of the
continuum than the latter. I hold that a great deal of the
criticism levelled at Stargate is because it held such potential,
and it was unfortunate that it fell short of everyone's expectations.
Have you liked _any_ sf film made in the last decade?
Of course, this was all IMHO.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Keir
> Now there's a Stargate opinion that I agree with 150 percent. Finally!
> I'm so sick of people picking this movie to pieces. Why can't they sit
>back and enjoy a very entertaining movie rather than complaining about
>how all the moons were just earth moons of different sizes and how the
>science isn't realistic. It's fantasy, for crying out loud! Have a good
>time!
Yes, it IS fantasy - nothing wrong with that. It might even be entertaining
fantasy. What it doesn't deserve the label of, though, is the very label it
has: science fiction. Oh, you could *describe* it as science fiction,
pointing to the alien planet, futuristic technology and extraterrestrial
life-forms, buy due to the appaling scientific illiteracy, it doesn't
*deserve* it. So why do they sell it as such?
Because the general movie-going public is so forgiving of idiocy and
incompetence and eager for eye-candy. Science fiction films should be at
least MIND-candy! :-)
Cheers
Bill
--
Bill Keir bil...@scorch.hna.com.au "Where does this road go?"
"It doesn't go anywhere. They leave it here to drive the cars on."
G Bell
>In article <3nbslp$h...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> v...@giskard.cwru.edu ("Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr.") writes:
>>In article <7983...@news2.compulink.com>,
>>fugitive <fugi...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm so sick of people picking this movie to pieces. Why can't they sit
>>>back and enjoy a very entertaining movie ...
>>
>> Because it wasn't very entertaining.
>for you. Others see it differently.
I quite enjoyed it in fact I will probably enjoy it the more I see it,
you seem to be able mentally to brush over the weeknesses and enhance
the good things, well that's what I do. I have to admit I love Flash
Gordon, I know some folks willl think I should be put in a straight
jacket, but I really enjoy this movie. But I also enjoy more serious
movies as well, I just make sure I watch it with the right attitude.
To me it's purely mental set a certain expectation and you will be
surprised how a lot of movies you would discount from reviews, blurbs
word of mouth, turn out to be more fun than you expected.
Also watching films should be an enjoable experience, and never get
huaghty with someone because they have different tastes, that's what's
great about being human we're all different .
Graham
Goncalo Nuno Freira Valverde
: > Because it wasn't very entertaining.
: for you. Others see it differently.
Well not for me.... well it was a bit entertaining because we bashed a
loudly the movie when we where seing it (yeah i know.. this is not a
decent thing to do, when there are other ppl trying to se the movie..but
well the movie was *so* predictable we couldnt help ourselves).. my major
nitpick (like you probably noticed) was that the movie was too damn
predictable.. me and i bet almoust everyone could see what was going to
happend.. and that is not that much fun i think. dont mind that they got
most of the technobable all wrong ..hey im in physics.. probably its me
beeing picky but when i see FTL comunications in the present.. well it
just pisses me off.. i can handle in stuff like babylon 5 or star trek
(btw im not a trekkie.. in fact ST is too damn political correct to
appeall very much to me ) because its centuries from now..
: If you are so discriminating you should also the see the good aspects of the
: movie. Mainly fine set decoration, cinematography and one of the most praised
: scores in 94.
Well agreed the music was entertaining (Indiana Jones and Star Wars eat you
heart out :-)). but thats not enought to make a good movie i think..
: Then there were some decent special effects, an unusual charismatic appearance
Well... the sfx are nice.. but then again good sfx are a dozen nowaday..
even SF TV shows have them.. so..
: by Jay Davidson (which is not for everyone's taste, I agree) and a fine suppor-
: ting performance by Viveca Lindfords who shines in every scene she's in.
: All irrelevant? Maybe to you, not to me.
: So there.
: Now back again to the umpteenth posting about ludicrous coordinate systems and
: rotated moons. I'm all ear/eye.
Well.. we can start discussing the lack of more egiptian deitys in the
movie :-) where was Bast? and Horos? and the guy with the crocodile head ?
(dont remember his name.. hey im not an egyptologist.. :-))
--
And finally here we are at the signature part of the post.. I guess that
you would be expecting to find here some nifty ascii drawing, a real deep
and meaningfull quotation and some stuff about myself.. but alas, im too
lazy to draw, tired of quoting other ppl or inventing my one "real deep
and meaningfull thoughts"(TM) and i doubt you are really interested in me
><><><><><><><><><><><email: feda...@cc.fc.ul.pt><><><><><><><><><><><><
Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr.
James Christopher Ellis <jce...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>In article <3nbslp$h...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
>Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr. <v...@giskard.cwru.edu> wrote:
>>In article <7983...@news2.compulink.com>,
>>fugitive <fugi...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm so sick of people picking this movie to pieces. Why can't they sit
>>>back and enjoy a very entertaining movie ...
>>
>
So? The man asked why not everyone enjoyed the movie. The answer
is that they did not consider it to be entertaining. Stating that
not everyone believes that way does nothing to refute this claim.
>> So basically, you can either be a discriminating viewer who more fully
>>appreciates high-quality entertainment, or a less discriminating one who
>>can more readily enjoy movies with clumsy scripts, poor characterization
>>and shoddy storylines. There are obvious pros and cons to each side.
>>Personally, I'd choose the former any day.
>
> Personally, I think its a matter of perspective. Stargate had
>its flaws, granted, and they _did_ detract from the potential the
>film possessed, but were they severe enough to relegate to the
>level of a 'clumsy script, poor characterization and shoddy
>storyline'? Obviously you hold that this is true.
Yes, it is a matter of perspective, as matters of taste generally
are. In the paragraph above though, I was merely refuting the
assertion that we should just sit back and enjoy. As any true
artist will tell you, that is not a good way to appreciate an
artistic attempt, whatever form that may take.
> I can empathize with your reasons for disliking it Dean, but
>think you are throwing 'the baby out with the bathwater'. There
>is an intermediate stage between, say 2001, and Barbarella, and I
>think that Stargate fits closer to the former end of the
>continuum than the latter. I hold that a great deal of the
>criticism levelled at Stargate is because it held such potential,
>and it was unfortunate that it fell short of everyone's expectations.
>Have you liked _any_ sf film made in the last decade?
As a matter of fact, yes. The Back to the Future movies, among
others. Ditto for Timecop, ST IV, ST VI and to a lesser extent,
ST:Generations. There are others, but you get the point. (For the
sake of argument, I'm adopting a looser definition of SF that what
purists would use. After all, if I were to use the strictest
definition, very few movies would qualify-- and Stargate would
certainly not be one of them.)
I will agree that it's at an intermediate stage between 2001 and
many other movies. As for Barbarella, I actually enjoyed that more.
It was more loosely SF, but I accepted that since its premise was
different. It had a so-so storyline, but it did not offer clumsy
scientific explanations and whatever plotholes it had were not nearly
as obvious as those in Stargate.
Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr.
G Bell <gb...@festival.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>I quite enjoyed it in fact I will probably enjoy it the more I see it,
>you seem to be able mentally to brush over the weeknesses and enhance
>the good things, well that's what I do. I have to admit I love Flash
>Gordon, I know some folks willl think I should be put in a straight
>jacket, but I really enjoy this movie. But I also enjoy more serious
>movies as well, I just make sure I watch it with the right attitude.
>To me it's purely mental set a certain expectation and you will be
>surprised how a lot of movies you would discount from reviews, blurbs
>word of mouth, turn out to be more fun than you expected.
I'm glad you said that, since I happen to agree with you. It's
with that mindset that I was able to enjoy the early Police Academy
movies, for example. With Stargate, however, I found that it
didn't work. Why? Because the movie clearly tried to be serious.
It attempted to paint a cohesive picture -- and failed. Painted
against the backdrop of its supposed coherence (as evidenced by
the attempts at logical and scientific explanations), its failings
stood out in sharp contrast.
Besides, one can only take so much by way of cliches, predictable
storylines, shallow characterization, and just plain illogic. I
honestly tried to enjoy the movie -- indeed, I expected to do so,
since I heard that it was rather promising. At times I did, but
for the most part, I couldn't. I'm sorry, but I could not.
>Also watching films should be an enjoable experience,
But only if the film is an enjoyable one. After all, eating should
be an enjoyable experience as well. Surely you don't think that
we should always enjoy what we eat, regardless of what the food
tastes like?
and never get
>huaghty with someone because they have different tastes, that's what's
>great about being human we're all different .
It's not a matter of being haughty. It's a matter of being able
to explain why one enjoyed a film -- or failed to do so. Since I
did not like the film, I am perfectly justified in saying why, without
resorting to personal attacks.
James Christopher Ellis
Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr. <v...@giskard.cwru.edu> wrote:
>>Have you liked _any_ sf film made in the last decade?
>
>As a matter of fact, yes. The Back to the Future movies, among
>others. Ditto for Timecop, ST IV, ST VI and to a lesser extent,
>ST:Generations. There are others, but you get the point. (For the
>sake of argument, I'm adopting a looser definition of SF that what
>purists would use. After all, if I were to use the strictest
>definition, very few movies would qualify-- and Stargate would
>certainly not be one of them.)
>
>I will agree that it's at an intermediate stage between 2001 and
>many other movies. As for Barbarella, I actually enjoyed that more.
>It was more loosely SF, but I accepted that since its premise was
>different. It had a so-so storyline, but it did not offer clumsy
>scientific explanations and whatever plotholes it had were not nearly
>as obvious as those in Stargate.
Your last two paragraphs illustrate perfectly the fact that
'taste's vary'. It was precisely because of clumsy scientific
explanations and plotholes that I _despised_ Timecop and the Back
to the Future films, and didn't think too highly of Generations
and most of the Trek films you didn't name. (I also didn't like
ST:IV, but that was due to rampant political correctness). On the
other hand, I was able to look beyond these problems in Stargate.
YMMV
fugitive
: is that they did not consider it to be entertaining. Stating that
: not everyone believes that way does nothing to refute this claim.
That's not what I asked. :) I asked why everyone has to analyse it to
death.
: Yes, it is a matter of perspective, as matters of taste generally
: are. In the paragraph above though, I was merely refuting the
: assertion that we should just sit back and enjoy. As any true
: artist will tell you, that is not a good way to appreciate an
: artistic attempt, whatever form that may take.
I don't think this is true. Look at music, perhaps the purest of the
art forms. The enjoyment of music is based almost solely on sitting back
and absorbing, not analysing. Why should this be different for the other
art forms?
If you look at the Mona Lisa through a magnifying glass, all you're
going to see is some blobs of paint. It ceases to be beautiful.
This all probably sounds very abstract, and not particularly relevant
to the discussion of Stargate. But my point is just that dissecting
movies doesn't serve to increase enjoyment of them. Stargate has its
flaws. It's far from perfect. But if you're willing to just sit back
and ENJOY it, you can have a great time!
:[question asked about sci-fi that you enjoyed]
: As a matter of fact, yes. The Back to the Future movies, among
: others. Ditto for Timecop, ST IV, ST VI and to a lesser extent,
: ST:Generations. There are others, but you get the point. (For the
I don't mean to be critical, but Timecop had three times the number of
plot holes and technical flaws that Stargate had. (I still enjoyed it,
too, but how can you pan Stargate for something that's even more obvious
in a film you enjoyed?)
That paragraph probably sounds very nasty, but it's not intended that
way. This is not a flame! :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: ComputerLink Online. Realms of Despair! :
: (416)233-5410, 104 lines telnet realms.game.org 4000 :
: T1 bandwidth, 300-28,800 bps Endless medieval enjoyment! :
: :
: Join our International Teleconference --> chat.compulink.com 9000 :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
James Christopher Ellis
>For one thing, they never attempted to give an explanation for how
>their time travel device worked. That is fine; after all, you never
>heard Asimov explain how positronic brains worked, and you usually
>never hear any SF writer explain FTL travel. Omitting scientific
>explanations for future technology is fine, when such explanations are
>not important to the story. HOWEVER, if you do give an explanation,
>you had darned well make it sound good.
<Hack! Cough! Gasp! Sound of pop being mopped from terminal>
Timegate with fewer plotholes and tech flaws than Stargate? For
a brief rebuttal, why the rocket sleds? Why put a brick wall at
the end of the sleds? How do you 'carbon-date' gold? How do you
detect a time-storm (or wotever it was called)? How do you get
back into a seated position in the sled by walking (in an upright
position) through a 'stargate'? Why pollute the timestream by
keeping time machines open in an attempt to 'patrol it'? Most of
all, what was with that blatant b.s. about touching your past
self?
There were no explanations not because the movie stood on its
own merits but because the so-called science was insupportable!
Most of the movie was to provide flimsy excuses to use desired
special effects (especially the climax)! Stargate was the paragon
of plot and characterization compared to this dog!
>Besides, if you're referring to the time travel paradoxes, that is
>an inevitable staple of time travel stories. It is clear that if
>time travel to the past is possible, there will have to be paradoxes
>of some sort. So objecting to the story simply because of these
>paradoxes exist is rather foolish.
The paradoxes were almost a welcome relief from the rest of
this crap, because they showed that the script-writers had at
least read the back cover of some _real_ sf. To bad they never
traversed the actual pages of any...
All IMHO of course...
Bruce A. Singer
is when the go through the gate. Before they go through the gate,
the wirtting and acting was entertaining and absorbing. The plot was
filled with lots of nifty ideas. After they go through the gate,
however, things fall apart. It lost its direction. The character
acted out of character, and just wasn't very good.
You get totally different reactions to this film based upon which part
of the film is dominate for the viewer. The people who focus on the
begining like the movie, the people who focus on the end hate it.
It was almost a great movie. It is just a so so moive.
Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr.
>Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr. <v...@giskard.cwru.edu> wrote:
>>I strongly disagree that Timecop had more plotholes and tech flaws.
>>For one thing, they never attempted to give an explanation for how
>>their time travel device worked. That is fine; after all, you never
>>heard Asimov explain how positronic brains worked, and you usually
>>never hear any SF writer explain FTL travel. Omitting scientific
>>explanations for future technology is fine, when such explanations are
>>not important to the story. HOWEVER, if you do give an explanation,
>>you had darned well make it sound good.
>
> <Hack! Cough! Gasp! Sound of pop being mopped from terminal>
>
> Timegate with fewer plotholes and tech flaws than Stargate? For
>a brief rebuttal, why the rocket sleds? Why put a brick wall at
>the end of the sleds? How do you 'carbon-date' gold? How do you
>detect a time-storm (or wotever it was called)? How do you get
>back into a seated position in the sled by walking (in an upright
>position) through a 'stargate'? Why pollute the timestream by
>keeping time machines open in an attempt to 'patrol it'? Most of
>all, what was with that blatant b.s. about touching your past
>self?
Even if you take those into account (most of which are
indeed valid), they pale in comparison to the huge number
of techical and common sense errors in Stargate. Time
and again, we see people compile lists of obvious flubs
from Stargate. I have yet to see anyone compile a similar
list from Timecop. The errors are indeed there, but they
just don't compare to those from Stargate.
Jim Manchester
>fugitive <fugi...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm so sick of people picking this movie to pieces. Why can't they sit
>>back and enjoy a very entertaining movie ...
>
> Because it wasn't very entertaining.
>
>quality. A good movie appears even better under the light of intelligent
>analysis. The same is true of good artwork, or a good novel, or good
>music. Unfortunately, by learning to apply critical analysis to one's
>entertainment, one also becomes less capable of "enjoying" low-quality
>productions. A small loss, IMO.
>
>appreciates high-quality entertainment, or a less discriminating one who
>can more readily enjoy movies with clumsy scripts, poor characterization
>and shoddy storylines. There are obvious pros and cons to each side.
>Personally, I'd choose the former any day.
>
the slow parts and wondering what the heck was going on at the fast parts
to care if it was real science...It was just a bad movie...
--
Jim Manchester
che...@ren.psy.jhu.edu "Don't count your weasels before they pop,
Johns Hopkins University dink."
Baltimore, MD -The Tick, _The Tick_, #11
pow...@zeta.org.au
but I looked at it from 2 sides. Firstly, I enjoyed it as a FANTASY with
a bit of SF thrown in. There could have been more action sequences but
that I can let slide. In all a fairly good movie (even though it took
Moses 30 years to convince his people to revolt against egypt and
James Spader did it in 2 days).
However......there was one issue that annoyed me throught the whole movie
and it was this...When the US Gov has the stargate, it is hooked up to
a large number of computers and has mechanical devices driving the rings
to move them and on the other side Spader has none of these so HOW did
he turn the wheels to the correct settings for the gate home???????
And isn't it interesting that it seemed that the RS-232 standard has been
around for 3000 years so we can plug PCs into ancient egyptian relics!
P.S. Please do not post replies as I did enjoy the movie, and I only
needed to get this off my chest :)
/------------------------------------------------------------------
I told the priest, 'Don't count on any second coming,
God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming,
He had the nerve to come, the balls to die and then forgive us',
Hey hey goodbye, tomorrow Wendy's going to die - A.Prieboy
------------------------------------------------------------------/
fugitive
: >death.
: I beg to differ. I was referring to the following comment:
: "I'm so sick of people picking this movie to pieces. Why
: can't they sit back and enjoy a very entertaining movie
: rather than complaining about how ..."
: Now there is certainly a strong element of what you said about
: people anaylzing the movie, especially in the first sentence.
: Still, the clear connotation of the second statement is that we
: SHOULD just sit back and enjoy the movie. I'll admit that strictly
: speaking, you did not ask why not everyone considered it to be
: entertaining. Still, you did ask why we can't just enjoy it, which
: is essentially the same thing.
Granted. My wording was bad. My intention was to ask why people
analyse so much, and perhaps that's not the way it came out.
: > I don't think this is true. Look at music, perhaps the purest of the
: >art forms. The enjoyment of music is based almost solely on sitting back
: >and absorbing, not analysing. Why should this be different for the other
: >art forms?
: While the enjoyment of music does rest largely on sitting back
: and relaxing, to reduce its enjoyment to that kindergarden level
: is again self-defeating. I do not expect every music listener
: to dissect the pieces they listen to. However, good music should
: at least be able to withstand analysis. Also, if the music withstands
: such analysis, and if you realize that it does, you can begin to
: appreciate the music on a far greater level than those who choose
: to listen with their brains in low gear.
It all boils down to the old debate between the romantics and the
scientifics. A romantic will say that the ONLY way to truly appreciate a
piece of music or art is to take it in as a whole, and enjoy its beauty.
To deconstruct and analyse is to destroy its beauty, and is
self-defeating. The contrary point-of-view (there is a name for it, but
it fails me right now... classical?) depends upon deconstruction for true
appreciation.
I belong in the romantic category. I have always believed that nothing
can be gained by analysing art. It should be taken for what it is.
Obviously you belong in the other category. It is impossible to
reconcile the two. Neither one of us is going to convince the other.
: Similarly, one can pay little or no attention to the lyrics of one's
: music, yet still enjoy the song. Is that a valid approach? Yes. Is
: it ultimately more fruitful to adopt this policy? I daresay not, for
: by doing so you deprive yourself of the opportunity to experience
: artistry beyond what you would ordinarily perceive.
Again, I would disagree. It's not really much of an analogy for the
movie question, but that's my fault--I started it. :)
I think just enjoying the music without paying much attention to the
lyrics is a perfectly valid approach, that deprives you of nothing. I
would say that to sit and pick apart the lyrics would be the way to
destroy the song. You disagree.
What can you do?
: However, if you pay attention to the artistic style, analyzing the
: choice of colors and strokes used, one can appreciate it all the more.
: There lies the rub. Contrary to your perception, appreciating art is
: not a matter of looking at blobs of paint. It's a matter of discerning
: the artist's intent, determining the effort (or lack thereof) which
: went into his attempt, seeing how well (or how poorly) the individual
: elements mesh together, and thereby appreciating it all the more --
: IF the artistic work is truly worthy of appreciation.
I would say that appreciating a work of art is not, in fact, a matter
of discerning all these things. It is simply a matter of looking at it,
and determining whether you find it beautiful or not. Nothing more.
: I strongly disagree that Timecop had more plotholes and tech flaws.
: For one thing, they never attempted to give an explanation for how
: their time travel device worked. That is fine; after all, you never
: heard Asimov explain how positronic brains worked, and you usually
: never hear any SF writer explain FTL travel. Omitting scientific
: explanations for future technology is fine, when such explanations are
: not important to the story. HOWEVER, if you do give an explanation,
: you had darned well make it sound good.
No offence, but this sounds pretty flimsy to me. I can name a million
plot holes and inconsistencies in Timecop. A few:
what happens to that rocket car when they go back in time, and how do
they get back into it when they return?
why does Van Damme always appear in the most inconvenient places,
seemingly without control, when Ron Silver can just step casually into
the middle of the room he wants to be in?
Timecop seems to have a lot of lazy writing. They didn't explain the
science for one reason, and one reason only: because it doesn't make any
sense. At least Stargate was consistent.
Don't get me wrong--I found Timecop very entertaining as well, despite
these problems. But I really don't understand how you can say it
withstands analysis when Stargate does not. That sounds rather inconsistent.
: implausible premise that the writer throws out. Timecop introduced
: the implausibility of time travel, but after that it remained mostly
: consistent to this theme--especially since we currently have no idea
: how time travel paradoxes would resolve themselves, if they do indeed
: exist.
Okay, but it had a lot of problems aside from the paradoxes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
: ComputerLink Online (416)233-5410 104 lines, SLIP, 9600 - 28,800 bps :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr.
>
>: While the enjoyment of music does rest largely on sitting back
>: and relaxing, to reduce its enjoyment to that kindergarden level
>: is again self-defeating. I do not expect every music listener
>: to dissect the pieces they listen to. However, good music should
>: at least be able to withstand analysis. Also, if the music withstands
>: such analysis, and if you realize that it does, you can begin to
>: appreciate the music on a far greater level than those who choose
>: to listen with their brains in low gear.
>
> It all boils down to the old debate between the romantics and the
>scientifics. A romantic will say that the ONLY way to truly appreciate a
>piece of music or art is to take it in as a whole, and enjoy its beauty.
That, however, assumes that said piece of music or art IS a
thing of beauty. I do not deny the value of simply appreciating
beauty; what I do deny is the value of simply sitting back and
enjoying a movie, or song, or work of alleged art, without paying
attention to the quality or lack thereof.
>To deconstruct and analyse is to destroy its beauty, and is
>self-defeating. The contrary point-of-view (there is a name for it, but
>it fails me right now... classical?) depends upon deconstruction for true
>appreciation.
That is a gross oversimplification, to say the least. As I said,
it makes the careless assumption that the alleged artwork is worthy
of praise. Furthermore, I doubt that many romantics would be willing
to swallow any movie/song/whatever thrown their way, without paying
attention to its quality.
A good poet is, in general and almost by default, a romantic. Very
few poets would say, "Just shut up and enjoy the poem! It's a POEM!
It's FICTION! It was meant to be enjoyed." Rather, a good poet
recognizes that poetry is most fully enjoyed when one takes the time
to understand what the poem is about. I do not mean analyzing it
the way a scientist would use a magnifying glass, to borrow an analogy
you once used. No, I do not refer to any form of scientific or
mathematical analysis. Rather, I simply mean paying attention to the
nuances of cohesion and style, while attempting to understand what
the poet attempts to convey.
>: However, if you pay attention to the artistic style, analyzing the
>: choice of colors and strokes used, one can appreciate it all the more.
>: There lies the rub. Contrary to your perception, appreciating art is
>: not a matter of looking at blobs of paint. It's a matter of discerning
>: the artist's intent, determining the effort (or lack thereof) which
>: went into his attempt, seeing how well (or how poorly) the individual
>: elements mesh together, and thereby appreciating it all the more --
>: IF the artistic work is truly worthy of appreciation.
>
> I would say that appreciating a work of art is not, in fact, a matter
>of discerning all these things. It is simply a matter of looking at it,
>and determining whether you find it beautiful or not. Nothing more.
Yet you said that we should simply sit back and enjoy STARGATE.
You also criticized those who criticized the movie, even though they
were simply attempting to discern such mundane matters as cohesion
(e.g. plot and premise consistency, not to mention basic logic) and
style (e.g. scripting and characterization).
>: I strongly disagree that Timecop had more plotholes and tech flaws.
[cut]
>
> No offence, but this sounds pretty flimsy to me. I can name a million
>plot holes and inconsistencies in Timecop. A few:
[cut]
As I explicitly said, TIMECOP does have its share of flaws. My
point, however, was that the number pales in comparison to those in
STARGATE. Time and again, people on r.a.s.m. have bashed STARGATE
and produced long lists of the basic premise and logical inconsistencies,
let alone the problems with clumsy storytelling and poor characterization.
In fact I've lost track of how many times that has happened. On the
other hand, I don't recall any time, outside of this thread, when someone
has compiled a similar list for TIMECOP. That comes as no surprise; as
I've said, the of those flaws just does not compare.
> Timecop seems to have a lot of lazy writing. They didn't explain the
>science for one reason, and one reason only: because it doesn't make any
>sense. At least Stargate was consistent.
STARGATE was consistent? Give me a break. Those inconsistencies
have been discussed time and again, on this very forum.
I will agree that the TIMECOP writing was lazy, but that's not why
they didn't explain the science. They did not explain it because a
scientific explanation was not important for the story. It was sufficient
to say that the government was working on a time travel project, and
that technology had developed to the point where it was possible.
The best SF writers do not explain their "scientific" premises unless
it is necessary to advance the story. Asimov, for example, has NEVER
offered an explanation for how positronic brains work. It is rather
ignorant to say that an SF writer should offer a scientific explanation,
or that his failure to do so is the result of lazy writing.
James Christopher Ellis
>[cut]
>>
>> No offence, but this sounds pretty flimsy to me. I can name a million
>>plot holes and inconsistencies in Timecop. A few:
>[cut]
>
> As I explicitly said, TIMECOP does have its share of flaws. My
>point, however, was that the number pales in comparison to those in
>STARGATE. Time and again, people on r.a.s.m. have bashed STARGATE
>and produced long lists of the basic premise and logical inconsistencies,
>let alone the problems with clumsy storytelling and poor characterization.
>In fact I've lost track of how many times that has happened. On the
>other hand, I don't recall any time, outside of this thread, when someone
>has compiled a similar list for TIMECOP. That comes as no surprise; as
>I've said, the of those flaws just does not compare.
I would stringently disagree. As far as I am concerned, no list
was made up for Timecop simply because expectations were lower
for this film (as it was merely a mindless vehicle for Van
Damme). The reson there is so much dissatisfaction with Stargate,
resulting in the lists is because it didn't live up to its
expectations, either sligtly (for me) or in a big way (for you).
I expected Timecop to be weak, and ended up despising this piece
of dreck. I just wasn't motivated enough to slag it on the net
(since I really didn't expect much more). Thus, you cannot use
the fact that no nitpick list was compiled to 'prove' it was
less flawed than Stargate. Hell, I'll start such a list right
now if that is the case! We'll compare the lengths of these
nitpick lists, and I'm sure you'll find it to be no shorter
than the Stargate one.
(Actually, I would be interested in seeing a poll of this group
to see how opinion goes about which film was more fundamentally
screwed - a walkaway 'victory' for Timecop, IMHO)
You claim that the basic premise of Stargate was screwed. I
disagree. I claim the same about Timecop (in spades!). YMMV
>> Timecop seems to have a lot of lazy writing. They didn't explain the
>>science for one reason, and one reason only: because it doesn't make any
>>sense. At least Stargate was consistent.
>
> STARGATE was consistent? Give me a break. Those inconsistencies
>have been discussed time and again, on this very forum.
>
> I will agree that the TIMECOP writing was lazy, but that's not why
>they didn't explain the science. They did not explain it because a
>scientific explanation was not important for the story. It was sufficient
>to say that the government was working on a time travel project, and
>that technology had developed to the point where it was possible.
They didn't explain it because it was pure b.s.! Theres _no
way_ they could come up with a logical framwork to explain the
use of the sleds, the don't-touch-yourself crap, and the rest of
this shit. You give them too much credit for their use of
'cool-looking' plot devices.
> The best SF writers do not explain their "scientific" premises unless
>it is necessary to advance the story. Asimov, for example, has NEVER
>offered an explanation for how positronic brains work. It is rather
>ignorant to say that an SF writer should offer a scientific explanation,
>or that his failure to do so is the result of lazy writing.
Granted, but then Asimov didn't just create positronic brains
as a meaningless plot device either! He at least thought through
the implications of such devices to attempt to create a coherent,
and realistic-seeming science to support them. He sure as hell
_didn't_ throw in crap such as rocket sleds that were aimed
towards a wall for no apparent reason, which conveniently
disappeared as one travelled in time, and whose passengers would
enter and exit as if meandering down a path, rather than having
to assume the seated position required to fit into the bleeding
sled!
Morgan Phillips
> That's not what I asked. :) I asked why everyone has to analyse it to
>death.
*Really* good movies can stand up to analysis - and your enjoyment can be
greatly enhanced by analysing just why you do like them.
> Look at music, perhaps the purest of the art forms. The enjoyment of music
>is based almost solely on on sitting back and absorbing, not analysing. Why
>should this be different for the other art forms?
My greatest enjoyment of music is analysing what is going on, appreciating the
technicality, melody and chord progressions - it aids enjoyment. Likewise, a
painter may appreciate the technical ability and style of other painters - it's
no different for other art forms.
>Stargate has its flaws. It's far from perfect. But if you're willing to just sit back
> and ENJOY it, you can have a great time!
Sorry, but if I can't help but disbelieve everything that's going on - the pseudoscience,
the drab plot, the token love interest - I can't just sit back and enjoy it.
I think the movie-going public are too ready to give any old crap that comes out the
thumbs up. People in general are not discerning enough, and are sucked in by the hype
of the media (can you say Entertainment Tonight?).
Morgan.
fugitive
: >piece of music or art is to take it in as a whole, and enjoy its beauty.
: That, however, assumes that said piece of music or art IS a
: thing of beauty. I do not deny the value of simply appreciating
: beauty; what I do deny is the value of simply sitting back and
: enjoying a movie, or song, or work of alleged art, without paying
: attention to the quality or lack thereof.
And who determines what has quality and what does not? That is a
subjective judgment, and it's pointless to argue it. What you have been
saying all along is that we MUST analyse works of art if we perceive
quality in the them. That's the point I'm debating. As a believer in
the romantic point of view, I find this kind of analysis self-defeating.
It reduces enjoyment rather than enhancing it.
: A good poet is, in general and almost by default, a romantic. Very
: few poets would say, "Just shut up and enjoy the poem! It's a POEM!
: It's FICTION! It was meant to be enjoyed." Rather, a good poet
: recognizes that poetry is most fully enjoyed when one takes the time
: to understand what the poem is about. I do not mean analyzing it
: the way a scientist would use a magnifying glass, to borrow an analogy
: you once used. No, I do not refer to any form of scientific or
: mathematical analysis. Rather, I simply mean paying attention to the
: nuances of cohesion and style, while attempting to understand what
: the poet attempts to convey.
There are different definitions of the "romantic point of view". I
think you're thinking along different lines than I am. With my
definition, it would certainly not be true that all poets are romantics.
Many are classicists.
From my perspective, it is not what the poet is trying to convey that
matters, but rather what the reader gets from it. It is not the context
under which the poem was written, the "nuances of cohesion and style"
that matter, but rather how much enjoyment the reader gets from simply
absorbing the poem, and enjoying it.
Once you step outside that, and start looking for the rhythms and
rhymes, you've stepped out of the romantic approach and into the classical.
: Yet you said that we should simply sit back and enjoy STARGATE.
: You also criticized those who criticized the movie, even though they
: were simply attempting to discern such mundane matters as cohesion
: (e.g. plot and premise consistency, not to mention basic logic) and
: style (e.g. scripting and characterization).
I criticized them for picking it apart. That was an emotional
response, based on my own subjective perception of quality in it.
I'm aware that's a bit elitist, but I was having a bad day. :)
: As I explicitly said, TIMECOP does have its share of flaws. My
: point, however, was that the number pales in comparison to those in
: STARGATE. Time and again, people on r.a.s.m. have bashed STARGATE
: and produced long lists of the basic premise and logical inconsistencies,
: let alone the problems with clumsy storytelling and poor characterization.
: In fact I've lost track of how many times that has happened. On the
: other hand, I don't recall any time, outside of this thread, when someone
: has compiled a similar list for TIMECOP. That comes as no surprise; as
: I've said, the of those flaws just does not compare.
Nobody has done it for Timecop for one reason: Timecop never found an
audience. Stargate did. The box office gross for Timecop was
negligable, while Stargate made well over $80 million in North America
alone. Nobody felt inspired to tear Timecop apart because they figured
everybody was already aware of the flaws, which would explain why it made
no money.
: STARGATE was consistent? Give me a break. Those inconsistencies
: have been discussed time and again, on this very forum.
The flaws discussed have ranged from the basically technical
(the star coordinate system) to the simply nitpicky (the rotated earth
moons). They have nothing to do with inconsistency. Once the rules were
set in Stargate (whether or not they made scientific sense), they were
adhered to for the entire movie. Not so for Timecop. The most obvious
example being the one I gave earlier, about how Van Damme has so much
trouble with his arrivals, while Ron Silver ends up exactly where he
wants to be. There are tons of other examples, and they've been pointed
out in some other posts in this thread.
: I will agree that the TIMECOP writing was lazy, but that's not why
: they didn't explain the science. They did not explain it because a
: scientific explanation was not important for the story. It was sufficient
: to say that the government was working on a time travel project, and
: that technology had developed to the point where it was possible.
I have no problem with them not explaining how the time travel works.
I do, however, have a problem when they don't explain why the time travel
system keeps changing with every trip.
As I've said before, being a romantic, I was able to see past these
flaws and enjoy the movie.
: The best SF writers do not explain their "scientific" premises unless
: it is necessary to advance the story. Asimov, for example, has NEVER
: offered an explanation for how positronic brains work. It is rather
: ignorant to say that an SF writer should offer a scientific explanation,
: or that his failure to do so is the result of lazy writing.
That's not at all what I said. See above.
------------------------------------------------------------------
: Come join our Teleconference! telnet://chat.compulink.com:9000 :
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Raglione
line was logical and sub plots interesting. Now You guys made a newbi
lurker come out of the wood work, But I had to say that every one I know
hated this movie. I can't understand why, what more does anybody want
from a s/f movie, Lately (past seven years ) Most s/f has been the same
old same old. This movie had it all. Ok so it doesn't rivit you to your
seat like the super greats did, but this is pure s/f, we need more.
gone back into hideing
pete.
Peter Raglione
Peter Raglione
Jim Manchester
Peter Raglione <Cos...@netaxis.qc.ca> wrote:
>Ok I thought Stargate was very well writen and produced, I thought story
>line was logical and sub plots interesting.
To me, it wasn't written well at all...the slow parts were boring, but the
fast parts just moved to fast. And I could see better special effects
watching the Power Rangers back to back with Michael Jackson's Black &
White video...
Virgilio 'Dean' B. Velasco Jr.
Peter Raglione <Cos...@netaxis.qc.ca> wrote:
>Most s/f has been the same
>old same old. This movie had it all.
Not to be disparaging, but Stargate was by no means innovative.
Not only was it ridden with movie cliches (visiting earthmen
worshipped as gods, hero getting betrothed without his knowledge,
crowd of humanity suddenly overturning the villians, etc. etc.),
but the so-called "SF" in this movie has been done to death.
I've refrained from responding to the most previous comments,
since the discussion has become largely pointless. ("Consistency"
in Stargate? Don't make me laugh.) Still, I just had to respond
to this claim that Stargate is original and "has it all."
Has it all? Maybe, if you exclude credible characterization,
decent scripting, a non-predictable plotline and other basics.
Stefan Zipproth
I strongly disagree with the opinion of Stargate being a boring movie. Besides good
characterization (the language expert as well as the leader of the team), humor (e. g.,
remember the scene with the first trial to communicate) and decent acting by all
persons it had an interesting and - to my knowledge - new idea: An alien of a high
technologized race searches for a possibility to live forever, and finds it on Earth.
There it builds up our civilization until it leaves us with a number of humans to
colonize another planet. A fascinating scene certainly is the discussion between
the main character and the Pharao, whose actor did a great job - wasn't 'he' female?
The idea is so good that I suspect it's copied from an SF-story, but the only other
person living forever and traveling with a starship through the universe I recall is
Wowbagger in The Hitchhiker's Guide.
Of course the effects could have been much better, and also the fighting scenes
were extremely boring (except those in the pyramid) - they seem to exist only
because an SF-movie without them is unthinkable today. Much more time should
have been spent on the doctor exploring the secret of the Pharao, with the help
of some revolting inhabitants and - perhaps - one of Ra's servants; there
was a lack of 'athmosphere' and variety of characters (in the second part).
Also the music was obviously copied and made worse to get something new but
that's not worth mentioning.
I didn't read all articles about Stargate, but I don't see even the slightest
inconsistency. Maybe you mean that it isn't consistent with today's science,
but with the term 'science fiction' isn't meant fiction based on science but
fiction based on a number of scientific assumptions which very well may
be inconsistent with today's science - but always theories are expanded
and turn out to be only a special case. The only important thing is that
the story uses these assumptions in a logical way; for example, in Star Trek
they endlessly cry for more energy - but nobody has the idea to press a
button and turn off the gravitation field - in addition, it functions
very well even if there's no energy at all (except light, of course) and
all systems are blocked. (It's a general assumption in Star Trek that you
only need _one_ energy source to convert into everything you need, so the
gravitation field would need energy from this source.)