Talk:Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Merge?

I don't really have strong feelings regarding this page, but since the material was drawn from similar sections in the Stargate (film) and Stargate SG-1 articles, this should be merged back into one of those articles if it is deleted and a link should be added from the other article.

Incidentally, I can't say too much about the "NOR" policy since all of the text here was copied from the other two articles with only minor tweaks. --Roger McCoy 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lines like The original Stargate film did not develop as much of depth as would be needed in a television serie is clearly an original observation. It needs to be cited. Who thinks this way? Has any third party commented on the differences between the film and the show? Hbdragon88 05:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't tell you myself. I didn't write that text: I lifted it from the "Stargate SG-1" page. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stargate_SG-1&oldid=118318780.) Feel free to change it to something that you find more NPoV/NOR. --Roger McCoy 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It frankly isn't true, and I changed the page to reflect reality more than fan opinion. --Promus Kaa 04:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the...?

This page shouldn't exist. The information here needs to be restored to the film's page!!! --Promus Kaa 20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, note that much of this information was taken from the show's page. The final product here is a hybrid of the two. If this page is integrated into one of those pages, please make sure to update the link on the other page. --Roger McCoy 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your advice was not taken, which is why I discovered this had once been it's own page. See more below. - BillCJ (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

From what I gather from this article, it seems that the point of view is taken that the film version is "more coorect" than the television version. I realize that a lot of this came from the film article, but I think it could be more equitably worded. Specifically, stating that the TV show "completely ignores" the movie canon might be better worded as not following the same canon as the movie.

I'd have made the changes myself, but as I wanted to see if anyone disagreed. If not, I'll do it when I have more time.

--trlkly 04:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. This article can just become better. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unsourced "facts"

Because this article is curently AfD'ed, I removed the possible Original research. If you can find sources talking about these differences (not the episodes themselves!), you may add them back to the article.

The chevrons in the Stargate film do not glow as they do in the series.
The top chevron on the film's Stargate is different aesthetically than the rest of its chevrons. In SG-1, all the chevrons on a stargate are visually identical.
In the film, to "lock" in a Stargate symbol, each chevron "pops" or "clamps" the symbol in question to dial it. In SG-1, only the top chevron "pops" when dialing an address, while the other chevrons merely light up and do not clamp.
The symbols on the film's gate are engraved into the surface of the Stargate. In SG-1's universe, the symbols protrude from the gates' surface.
The sound effects for the Stargate were completely re-done for SG-1; none of the stargate's sound effects from the film were used.
In SG-1, both the front and the back of the Stargate are identical, in that both sides resemble a placid pool of water.
The film's Stargate has a "pool" of a silver colour, which has the appearance of mercury, with a highly rippled surface. In SG-1, the "pool" (or event horizon) is bluish, and seems to be more viscous.
The film used more complex special effects than the series. For example, the film's ring transporters consist of nine rings that stack on top of one another, whereas only five more widely spaced rings are ever used in SG-1. The film version shows the transported person or object dematerialize and the particles move towards the destination. In the television series, a yellow-orange light would vertically sweep through the interiors of the rings, usually sweeping upward, even when the destination is below.
The Stargate on Abydos in the film is deep within the center of the pyramid, down a ramp from the main atrium room with pillars. In SG-1, the Stargate and transporter rings are positioned in the main atrium with the pillars.
The hand device used by Ra in the Stargate film differs greatly in appearance from the hand devices used by the Goa'uld in SG-1. The Sarcophagus is also vastly different in appearance.

Other differences might stem from accidental oversights. Some of them have been addressed in the series as either advances in technology or in-jokes.

The first time Daniel Jackson sees the Stargate is after he figures out the seven-coordinate address system, but in the TV episode "Lost City", he tells Elizabeth Weir that "I remember when we were first trying to get the Stargate to work, I would just come here, and stare at it for hours."
In the episode "The Torment of Tantalus", it was clearly stated Catherine Langford was twenty-one in 1945, which would make her about four years old in 1928. However, she is much older in the opening sequence of the film, which is set in that year.
In the episode "Children of the Gods", O'Neill told General Hammond that their "first clue" Ra was an alien was the fact that his eyes glowed. In the film, O'Neil did not encounter Ra until after Daniel Jackson had discovered he was an alien. (O'Neill may have been speaking sarcastically, however.)

– sgeureka ^t•c 21:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I saw the movie, in it the chevrons don't glow. I saw the TV series, in it the chevrons do glow. If you want to you can source the TV series and the movie. Same thing in the locked one. Strangly, both are already sourced in the text (in the movie, in the TV series). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ra original humanoid.jpg

Image:Ra original humanoid.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored page from merge

Per this page, there was no expressed consensus to merge this page into anyother page, much less to Children of the Gods! I would think that either the Stargate SG-1 or Stargate franchise page would be a better fit. I'd support the latter, if it had to be merged somewhere. As the original merge was made under "Be Bold", I've reverted under the Be Bold, Revert, DIscuss guideline. Let's try to do this right next time, including fixing all the redirects, and getting a consensus on where the best page to merge this one is, if it is to be merged at all. - BillCJ (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I am fine with discussing.) My reasoning behind the initial merge was to help CotG with a notability and context boost (and I am very much in favor to keep a copy of this Diff page in the CotG article anyway), and to get rid of the pointlessness of this page as its own article that just attract original research. Another idea is to merge it into Stargate SG-1, which is too focused on plot, original research and franchise information anyway if you compare it to e.g. the main article of Carnivàle, a series that lasted for only a tenth of SG-1's run. But I have no intention of fixing up Stargate SG-1 anytime soon. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]