Stargate - The Ark of Truth

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2007-12-22 02:35pm

For anyone interested this has recently.. appeared.. somewhere..

It's pretty entertaining. Wraps up the season 10 plot nicely in an hour and a half. Seems a bit rushed in places but there are several cool moments and stays true to Stargate form in terms of action.

It's something like 99% finished with place holders for a couple of effects (literally a couple). If you want to wait for the finished product which I can totally understand and this thread can be ignored.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-12-23 05:20am

From what I heard, it's all time-travel. The Trek-ification of Stargate is complete. It started as a show about jump-gates with a "Chariots of the Gods" flavour, and when I checked in later, I saw all the usual bog-standard Trek-inspired sci-fi cliches: human-built capital starships, technobabble, bubble shields, etc. But adding in a time travel-based plot? That's the kicker.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2007-12-23 05:23am

Well, one of their funnier episodes had two characters stuck in a time-loop and dicking around. If they maintain their lighthearted attitude and don't ram a quadrucorder up their ass like Trek, it could be alright. Doctor Who does timetravel but his ass is quadrucorder-free and he's alright.

But Captain, It's Not Logical!

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2007-12-23 05:24am

It's a real pity, because Stargate actually did time travel well. Once. If they'd left it at that, we'd be able to say 'hey, do you remember that Stargate time travel episode? Wasn't that done well?'. Then we got Mobius, and now they can't stop.

Laird · Post by **Laird** » 2007-12-23 06:14am

Just finished NOT watching it, time travel is no where to be found in this movie.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2007-12-23 06:25am

I think they're all confusing it with the S10 finale.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-12-23 06:29am

Or Continuum...

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2007-12-23 07:39am

Time travel is the second film, not this one.

This ties up to the Orii plot, the second film is the the Moebius rehash which I can't see being that great.

This one is though.

Post by **Vympel** » 2007-12-23 08:44am

Darth Wong wrote:From what I heard, it's all time-travel. The Trek-ification of Stargate is complete. It started as a show about jump-gates with a "Chariots of the Gods" flavour, and when I checked in later, I saw all the usual bog-standard Trek-inspired sci-fi cliches: human-built capital starships, technobabble, bubble shields, etc. But adding in a time travel-based plot? That's the kicker.

The first time travel episode they did was back in the Season 2, in which they went back to 1969 - it was played almost entirely for laughs, so it was pretty good.

Then there was the "Groundhog Day" episode mentioned above (Season 5, IIRC) that was also played pretty much for laughs - it was kept pretty time-travel free until a two-parter near Season 8. I could be missing some episodes out of ten seasons! worth though.

The rest of the cliches are there, except for the technobabble - there's some light blather about subspace and nonsense about supposed wormholes, but it's always kept extremely short when used (the usual approach was for Macguyver to just impatiently shut up whoever was spouting it) and it rarely served as a DEM.

Stargate's problem is the Ancients. The cause of - and solution to - all of the galaxy's problems - combined with the classic annoying Star Trek bullshit of "ascended beings of pure energy".

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-12-23 09:00am

Darth Wong wrote:I saw all the usual bog-standard Trek-inspired sci-fi cliches: human-built capital starships,

Which are done reasonably well. The prototype sucked and was horribly unreliable. The follow-on ones suck in all respects except for the tech an advanced alien ally donnated (i.e. the hyperdrives and shields). They use railguns and nuclear missiles when all the aliens have funky energy weapons.
Humans are still getting the hang of space combat tactics, being novices at it. It took eight years to develop them, on a crash program, and even with a near-unlimited budget only one is being built a year. That's not actually /realistic/, but it's a hell of a lot more realistic than the average sci-fi treatment of it.

technobabble,

Stargate has very minimal technobabble. It has /people talking about scientific/engineering solutions to problems/. Stargate is actually /real sci-fi/ in this respect, as opposed to fantasy or military drama with a sci-fi theme (BSG, I'm looking at you). The technical dialogue on Stargate has a remarkably good track record for actually making sense - a major reason why I liked SG-1 is that I'd think 'why don't they just do x, y and z'... and 10 seconds later Carter would actually do it, or at least explain why they can't do it in this instance. Trek just ignored plausibility and continuity in favour of spouting blocks of nonsense words.

I would expect you to be capable of distinguishing between technobabble and actual science fiction but apparently not.

bubble shields,

Exactly what is wrong with bubble shields? They're marginally more physically plausible than hull-huggers, but that's not the point; what actually improves plausibility is being consistent. Stargate has been almost entirely consistent on depicting bubble shields 25% to 50% larger than the enclosed ship. Trek utterly failed to be consistent on size or shape. Stargate wins on plausibility, and I can't see how this is any less good than the way SW handles shields.

But adding in a time travel-based plot? That's the kicker.

Yes that does suck. On the plus side, SG-1 has only resorted to time travel three times in the series run (that I recall - Atlantis has done it once) - and one of those was just sending a single scrap of paper back in time. Since SG-1 is already set on (partly) on contemporary earth, at least they can't do the horrible Trek 'let's send the cast to contemporary earth for wacky hijinks' episodes. But there's basically no good way to do time travel and it's a shame one of the TV movies centers on it.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-12-23 09:38am

Starglider wrote:I would expect you to be capable of distinguishing between technobabble and actual science fiction but apparently not.

Without wanting to get too 'no true scotsman' Stargate has a number of technobabble incidents. Pretty much every episode where something goes wrong with the stargate, they're talking about crystals this, and subspace buffer that.

Exactly what is wrong with bubble shields?

They are strongly visually reminiscient of Trek. There's nothing terribly wrong with Trek (well, the better Trek) but it has a certain flavour.

But there's basically no good way to do time travel and it's a shame one of the TV movies centers on it.

To my limited knowledge (I've been trying to avoid Spoilers) Continuum Isn't so much them time travelling, as Ba'al having used it to set himself up in absolute power. I've not seen a Time Travel story quite like that, and I'm interested in seeing where they go with it.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2007-12-23 10:28am

Without wanting to get too 'no true scotsman' Stargate has a number of technobabble incidents. Pretty much every episode where something goes wrong with the stargate, they're talking about crystals this, and subspace buffer that.

Aren't the crystals a storage medium?

I have to admit I can't remember anything about a subspace buffer though...

The buffer is the crystals which stores the "pattern" of the person that needs to be rebuilt.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-12-23 12:05pm

NecronLord wrote:Without wanting to get too 'no true scotsman' Stargate has a number of technobabble incidents.

Stargate has less technobabble than any other sci-fi series I have seen to date - that expressly has scientists and engineers solve problems with science and engineering. Some shows like BSG and B5 (pretty much) never had this issue, because they never even attempted to depict real science and engineering problems or challenges. SG-1 was light years ahead of any of the Trek shows, or Farscape, or Andromeda, or Doctor Who (new+old), or any other space-themed sci-fi shows I can think of right now. Unfortunately standards seem to have slipped a little on Atlantis but they're still pretty good.

To my limited knowledge (I've been trying to avoid Spoilers) Continuum Isn't so much them time travelling, as Ba'al having used it to set himself up in absolute power. I've not seen a Time Travel story quite like that, and I'm interested in seeing where they go with it.

Stargate is generally pretty good with that. They have had some interesting episodes centered around the Asgard (and in Atlantis, ancient) time dilation tech that don't involve actual time travel. The episode based on the broken/failed time machine was pretty cool, even if was a comedy ep.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2007-12-23 12:07pm

Zac Naloen wrote: Aren't the crystals a storage medium?

I have to admit I can't remember anything about a subspace buffer though...

The buffer is the crystals which stores the "pattern" of the person that needs to be rebuilt.

Goa'uld/Ancient Control crystals are both storage and processing module in a single unit. Makes a lot of sense for each crystal to have solid state storage and then a processing unit(s) built into it.

If we could build the ultra fast memory in a modern day processor (the stuff literially runs as fast as the CPU) in the quanities as modern hard drives(and cost effectively), we would dump processor + external memory combos so fast it wouldnt be funny.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-12-23 12:19pm

Starglider wrote:Stargate has less technobabble than any other sci-fi series I have seen to date

That's odd. I've rarely seen B5 or (n)BSG have $device-does-something-funky-and-needs-to-be-fixed plots. Which are extremely heavy on technobabble in comparison to say, BSG's 'It's an FTL drive. That's all we're telling you about it' policy.

In Stargate, practically everything that flies does so by 'taking inertia out of the equation' (WTF? The only way that makes sense is if it's a quiet reference to EE Smith's Inertialess Drives) or something equally dodgy.

Then there's their biology. Stargate has parasites with perfect genetic memory, bacteria that can survive being in proximity to detonating nuclear bombs, and numerous other absurdities.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-12-23 12:51pm

NecronLord wrote:
Starglider wrote:Stargate has less technobabble than any other sci-fi series I have seen to date
That's odd. I've rarely seen B5 or (n)BSG have $device-does-something-funky-and-needs-to-be-fixed plots.

Not technobabble. Technobabble is bad dialogue. Plots are not technobabble. Personally I see nothing wrong with device-needs-to-be-fixed plots. Of course it would be boring if it was the only thing happening, but it's plenty dramatic enough if done properly.

Which are extremely heavy on technobabble

Examples?

in comparison to say, BSG's 'It's an FTL drive. That's all we're telling you about it' policy.

Ok, so the BSG writers admitt that either a) they suck and can't write interesting sci/tech dialogue, b) their viewers aren't interested in interesting sci/tech dialogue or c) they know they'd have to make /some/ compromises in making sci/tech dialogue engaging and they're not prepared to. (a) is better than Trek delusions of competence, but it's still defeatist. (b) is ok as far as it goes but I expect /some/ shows to cater to audiences who /can/ appreciate this stuff and if you're too ignorant to be in that category go watch something else. (c) is elitist bullshit. /Any/ activity has to be somewhat dramatised to work on TV. /Some/ suspension of disbelief is allowed and expected. BSG's military stuff is hardly 100% realistic, it's just good enough not to break suspension of disbelief. SG-1's sci/tech stuff is generally as good; not perfect, but as about good as you can do given TV restrictions, and I appreciate that. Yes it sucks that their science/engineering heroes are basically split into 'physical science and programming geniuses' and 'medical geniuses' and that's it. But TV shows have to work with a reasonably sized main cast and I can deal with that at least as well as I can deal with Starbuck being an expert sniper/pilot/small unit commander/etc/etc.

In Stargate, practically everything that flies does so by 'taking inertia out of the equation'

Not technobabble. You're thinking of hard science vs soft science. That's a seperate debate. If it isn't dialogue, it isn't technobabble. Even if it is dialogue, it generally isn't not technobabble if it uses real terms in a sensible context. 'Taking inertia out of the equation' is a pretty reasonable description to layman of some complex bit of moderately-soft-science. No invented particles, no word salad, reducing inertial mass makes sense /in principle/, just not in practice given real physics.

Then there's their biology. Stargate has parasites with perfect genetic memory, bacteria that can survive being in proximity to detonating nuclear bombs, and numerous other absurdities.

You're still on soft-science vs hard science. Stargate is a soft-science show, deal. IMHO it's still a bit harder than Star Trek, which is hilarious given that Star Trek actually /claims/ to be realistic, whereas (AFAIK) Stargate's writers have never claimed to be any more realistic than Star Wars. However SG-1's science is generally quite internally consistent, and more importantly, we see heroic scientists and engineers acting in relatively realistic ways. In Trek they're pathetic caricatures, and in Wars and BSG they're either not present at all or we never see what they're doing in detail (i.e. they're not really part of the story).

SG-1 is the /only/ show I've seen recently that actually a) makes technical people look good and b) is a fun Hollywoodisation of what technical people really do, and I appreciate that.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-12-23 12:55pm

Xon wrote:If we could build the ultra fast memory in a modern day processor (the stuff literially runs as fast as the CPU) in the quanities as modern hard drives(and cost effectively), we would dump processor + external memory combos so fast it wouldnt be funny.

Stargate crystal processing tech is perfectly plausible. Of course it's a fairly standard sci-fi notion; B5 has them and Trek has isolinear chips and rods that are pretty similar.

The problem with Stargate's earlier episodes is that they had a tendency to mess around with hardware in order to fix software problems. I think this was just writer inexperience with computer tech; a lot of 90s shows suffered from this. The later stuff was much better about having them mess with code and /reprogram/ crystals instead of swapping them around (except when they'd been shot at and really needed to be swapped out). Atlantis has had quite a lot of fairly good programming / code-centric scenes (reprogramming nanites particularly).

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2007-12-23 01:23pm

Starglider wrote:
in comparison to say, BSG's 'It's an FTL drive. That's all we're telling you about it' policy.
Ok, so the BSG writers admitt that either a) they suck and can't write interesting sci/tech dialogue, b) their viewers aren't interested in interesting sci/tech dialogue or c) they know they'd have to make /some/ compromises in making sci/tech dialogue engaging and they're not prepared to. (a) is better than Trek delusions of competence, but it's still defeatist. (b) is ok as far as it goes but I expect /some/ shows to cater to audiences who /can/ appreciate this stuff and if you're too ignorant to be in that category go watch something else. (c) is elitist bullshit. /Any/ activity has to be somewhat dramatised to work on TV. /Some/ suspension of disbelief is allowed and expected. BSG's military stuff is hardly 100% realistic, it's just good enough not to break suspension of disbelief. SG-1's sci/tech stuff is generally as good; not perfect, but as about good as you can do given TV restrictions, and I appreciate that. Yes it sucks that their science/engineering heroes are basically split into 'physical science and programming geniuses' and 'medical geniuses' and that's it. But TV shows have to work with a reasonably sized main cast and I can deal with that at least as well as I can deal with Starbuck being an expert sniper/pilot/small unit commander/etc/etc.

How and why the FTL drive of BSG works is absolutely, completely, and utterly unimportant to the show or what it wants to tell.
Taking extra time to explain it for no apparant reason takes away screen time for characters and telling a story. In my book, the writers just don't care to explain who a Black Box works. Why should they? Will it add to the story they want to tell? No.
And I doubt that a huge percentage of the audience of BSG consists of detail-fetishists like you, so they're not likely to suddenly generate a huge increase in viewership.

Your paragraph above slightly reeks of the "elistist bullshit" you are seemingly against.

And please, BBCode offers you some more options to highlight than your "/highlight/" style. Consider using them. It is dreadful to read...

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-12-23 01:36pm

Dahak wrote:How and why the FTL drive of BSG works is absolutely, completely, and utterly unimportant to the show or what it wants to tell.

To the best of my knowledge, BSG falls primarily in category (b), 'we don't want to do that stuff, other shows do it better', with a little bit of (a) and (c).

And I doubt that a huge percentage of the audience of BSG consists of detail-fetishists like you,

I want at least one show that does this well, though I wouldn't mind a few.

Since we're throwing insults anyway, I am also going to make a wild generalisation and say that you hate all shows that even try to give scientists and engineers a real role because you are a sad, bitter humanities graduate jealous of people who solve real problems with real expertise. Ahhhh. That makes me feel so much better.

Your paragraph above slightly reeks of the "elistist bullshit" you are seemingly against.

BSG is ok. All sci-fi shows being like BSG is not ok. I'm not convinced that that would actually be any better than all sci-fi shows being like Trek. Fortunately SG-1 is not like either. My original point was that if you think it's just like Trek, you're a fool.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2007-12-23 02:25pm

Starglider wrote:
Dahak wrote:How and why the FTL drive of BSG works is absolutely, completely, and utterly unimportant to the show or what it wants to tell.
To the best of my knowledge, BSG falls primarily in category (b), 'we don't want to do that stuff, other shows do it better', with a little bit of (a) and (c).

Or they're just a show who take other priorities than to give a minor group nerdgasms by giving useless details just for the fun of it.

And I doubt that a huge percentage of the audience of BSG consists of detail-fetishists like you,
I want at least one show that does this well, though I wouldn't mind a few.

Since we're throwing insults anyway, I am also going to make a wild generalisation and say that you hate all shows that even try to give scientists and engineers a real role because you are a sad, bitter humanities graduate jealous of people who solve real problems with real expertise. Ahhhh. That makes me feel so much better.

Actually, no. I graduated in software engineering and happily solve problems as a IT consultant in the real world. So much for your generalisation. Thhhhbtt.
I don't mind shows that "even try to give scientists and engineers a real role". Which, really, isn't the point of a show, anyway. It's to tell a story. And not every detail is important to do that. If it fits into the show, sure, do it. But if a show just doesn't care about such things (because it is not important to the story), it is ok, as well. Why you are so bitter in this regard, no clue...

Your paragraph above slightly reeks of the "elistist bullshit" you are seemingly against.
BSG is ok. All sci-fi shows being like BSG is not ok. I'm not convinced that that would actually be any better than all sci-fi shows being like Trek. Fortunately SG-1 is not like either. My original point was that if you think it's just like Trek, you're a fool.

But you seem to think that the way SG-1 handles your beloved "scientist and engineers" topic in a way that fits your world view makes it inherently somewhat better.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-12-23 02:33pm

Starglider wrote:Examples?

48 hours springs to mind. Wherin the plot is about finding a solution to a strange technological problem. Sure, they don't use the deflector dish, but it's all about a made upproblem to a made up solution.

Not technobabble.

You want to explain how all the goa'uld centric biology episodes - say, Evolution where there's some semi-mystic device to 'instill life' in matter - use real science? Sure, it's not a 'nadion pulse' but it's Then there's 'Life Force' mentioned occasionally, particularly WRT the wraith. That's worse than technobabble; that's outright fantasy science.

Of course, my personal favourite bugbear for Stargate's technobabble is Neutronium buildings. Even motherfrickin' Neutronium robot people. Even Star Trek didn't abuse that material so badly as to make robots out of it.

we see heroic scientists and engineers acting in relatively realistic ways.

Where oodles of 'heroic' scientists tend to just sit there like lemmings and look stumped, until an air-force pilot or some other cast member shows them what to do. (Redepmtion is the particularly notable example of this). We see about two scientists who come up with every answer, and the others are mostly there for decoration, or worse, to do stupid things like bring plants back that start consuming the entire bunker structure, or break the stargate.

In Trek they're pathetic caricatures, and in Wars and BSG they're either not present at all or we never see what they're doing in detail (i.e. they're not really part of the story).

Perhaps I missed the bit in BSG where it's revealed that Dr. Gaius Baltar isn't a scientist.

SG-1 is the /only/ show I've seen recently that actually a) makes technical people look good and b) is a fun Hollywoodisation of what technical people really do, and I appreciate that.

It makes them look like buffoons. The only 'scientist' (excluding Jackson) who isn't a buffoon also happens to be a smoking hot air force pilot and commando. Dr Lee. Dr Felger. Dr. McKay. All of them are bumbling incompetants with no life outside a lab. McKay's got some character development, and now doesn't generally do obviously stupid things. The only recurring scientist we see with significant dialogue who isn't Carter, and may actually be a well adjusted person is Dr Zalenka.

As for their showing what scientists do, just thinking of a recent Atlantis episode: They keep on talking about how 'quantum physics' (which for a start, they've been told by a fairly relaible source is erroneous) prevents reliable foresight. And yet... Repeatedly, we see just this. Some scientific method.

As for the idea that Stargate hasn't got increasingly like Star Trek... Three words sum up how Star Trek-like it's become. Structural Integrity Fields.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2007-12-23 02:33pm

Starglider wrote:
Dahak wrote:How and why the FTL drive of BSG works is absolutely, completely, and utterly unimportant to the show or what it wants to tell.
To the best of my knowledge, BSG falls primarily in category (b), 'we don't want to do that stuff, other shows do it better', with a little bit of (a) and (c).

Actually, the other shows that do it better...do it worse. The thing that saves Stargate is when someone explains how so-and-so works, the camera cuts to Jack O'Neill rolling his eyeballs or outright telling the dude (or dudette in the case of Carter) to STOP!

And nBSG gave scientists a real role too! Look at Baltar gibber at himself while his imaginary telepathic android split-personality fundie god-given girlfriend-bot all but performs fellatio on him! Now THAT is REAL sci-fi!

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2007-12-23 05:08pm

As for the idea that Stargate hasn't got increasingly like Star Trek... Three words sum up how Star Trek-like it's become. Structural Integrity Fields.

Gateworld's omnipedia make no mention of these... what episode is this from? I have no recollection of this at all...

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-12-23 06:02pm

Zac Naloen wrote:Gateworld's omnipedia make no mention of these... what episode is this from? I have no recollection of this at all...

Unnatural Selection. Thor has his minions modify the Promethus' engines and Structural Integrity Fields to their maximum potential efficiency.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2007-12-23 06:30pm

NecronLord wrote:
Zac Naloen wrote:Gateworld's omnipedia make no mention of these... what episode is this from? I have no recollection of this at all...
Unnatural Selection. Thor has his minions modify the Promethus' engines and Structural Integrity Fields to their maximum potential efficiency.

Well actually he didn't say anything about structural integrity fields, just that the ships structural integrity had been increased to maximum. As the Prometheus's hull wasn't entirely complete when launched, I just assumed that meant the Asgard had completed the uncompleted sections.

But yes. SG1 did get, in SOME episodes, far from all, increasingly like Star Trek, especially in seasons 9 and 10. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it should have ended at 8.