Talk:Stargate (film)

Jaffa

The soldiers guarding Ra, Jaffa for want of a better word. Are they the humans from Earth that were part of o'neills team, under some kind brainwashing, or are they new characters

There were no "Jaffa" in the StarGate film. The Royal Guards Ra had were humans taken from the Abydonian populace, raised and trained under Ra's watchful eye to become his loyal servants and soldiers, the soldiers wearing helmets to pose as gods.--Promus Kaa

And your source for this is...? They might not have been Jaffa, but that doesn't mean they were human (The Ash'rak, for example, appear completely human to all outward appearances). JBK405 06:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you're referring to the novels based on the film, it should be noted that the events of SG-1 are considered of higher canonicity. JBK405 06:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't really {{fact}} tag someone's comments, but "the events of SG-1 are considered of higher canonicity" based on what or whom? Chris 05:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Promus may be at least partially correct. I just watched the film and it definitely looked as though two of the guards were originally members of O'Neil's team, although I could be completely wrong. - Jon Nosferatu

You are completely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.222.101 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Even as an ardent fan of SG1 and infrequent contributor to SG1 pages, the Emmerich/Devlin canon precedes SG1. SG1 canon is based upon the Emmerich/Devlin premise. Therefore, the motion picture should be accorded the fundamental or underlying canonicity ( Or 'first principles' in a mathematical analogy). Any assertation that SG1 is a 'higher canonicity' is synthesing or drawing conclusions.They are simply different.

As an aside, those of you who prefer to dismiss people who take the initiative with suggestions and contributions should perhaps engage in a discussion on the merits of the contribution, rather than take a declarative personal attack on people who are making contributions in good faith.

For the record, watch the scene where O'Neil and Jackson are forcibly knelt before Ra. (just before the children shield him from O'Neil's pistol attack). You'll notice the two former members of O'Neil's team in dressed as royal guards. Paul Roberton (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, 'canon' is what the writers have to accept as true going forward. E.g., O'Neill's name is spelled with two ls and always has been ... ever since the premiere of SG-1. Revisions necessarily take precedence over the original version, just as amendments to the Constitution take precedence over the previous text. That's what makes junior versions of 'higher canonicity' than the senior versions. The changes can be retconned, or handwaved away, or simply ignored.

—WWoods (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence in the article

"Although the original Stargate film possessed a rich backstory and universe (created and developed through official production notes, scripts, and a subsequent novel and graphic novel series), it was largely ignored and disregarded when MGM, although they lost key rights to the original film after its home video release (such rights are now owned by Lionsgate), did own the rights to the franchise in general, took Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin's product and handed the reins to a new team of creators (Brad Wright and Jonathan Glassner) for the television series Stargate SG-1."

That sentence is 93 words long and utterly perplexing. 172.212.112.188 (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's what a run-on sentence looks like! I think I understand it enough to break up into a few shorter sentences. However, it's not sourced at all, so it might be best to toss the parts that aren't self-evident while I'm at it. - BillCJ (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes section

Why is it here? It's juvenile and serves nothing to the purpose of explaining this joke of a film or its' merrits. I'm removing it. 99.225.52.60 (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotes sections are a regular part of WP film articles, like it or not. You've not given sufficient reason for removing it other than your apparant dislike for the film. I've restored the section per BOld, Revert, Discuss. Please build a consensus here to remove the section, and then it can be removed. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Influences & Sources

Now that I have made a foray into the Stargate motion picture from the SG1 ( see above, re canon et al) I'd like to ask a question. Why aren't there any mentions of Erich Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods ? The Stargate Ultimate Edition has 12 min special feature on the discussion of Von Daniken's theories as the basis for the alien/egypt mythology. While the realm of WP:NOR Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods, and Robert E. Howard are all seemingly influences to the development of the Stargate mythology also. (According to the 10,000 BC article, these authors have had a big influence on Emmerich's fascination with alien intervention in ancient civilisation)

If there is some interest, I'd like to boldly suggest that we develop a suitable new section on the topic.Paul Roberton (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would second that thought, especially since I believe Erich von Däniken was mentioned in one of the Stargate: SG-1 episodes.--RossF18 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Differences between Stargate and SG-1

I don't understand why this section is even here; there are absolutely no differences between the two mentioned! I understand that differences were mentioned originally, but some bozo decided to omit them for some stupid reason. So either restore the omitted examples, create a seperate article which list the examples and then link to it, or remove this section entirely ... And for the record, the main Stargate article lists no differences, so I have no idea why a link to the article is there, and recommend that it be removed. 64.180.93.200 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an article on the subject, but it seems to have been swept away in the wave of mergers.

—WWoods (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Stargate series fanatical edits

The edits by User:Trust Is All You Need are counter productive towards the factual integrity of the article. This user has ever tried using an existing source to mask an unsourced piece of information. As I told the user on my talk page, rearranging sections is not the issue, it is the information he is adding to the article. The plot, cast and infobox in particular. It has become an edit war, I am aware of the three edit rule, but my reverts are not based on an opinion of the facts. This user seems to be very young and not open to understanding reason; I am being led to believe that (s)he thinks that when (s)he wants something, (s)he is supposed to get it. The user also seems to be sitting there watching the page waiting for an edit, so that he can revert it within seconds.

I'm not so sure what to do about this; I would like some help, I will feel terrible just leaving the article. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=stargate.htm sais the film lasts around 2h and 1min, the first source i used was wrong, i mixed it up with another one. Sorry for that. What is wrong with the plot and the cast section, are you saying, they didn't travel to another planet? I'm not sure what i can do about you, but i know for sure that i can't leave the article alone with you for a second, which you have proven time over time. You have been reverted by three different users / editors, i've got more support than you on this battleground boy. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I advise anybody interested in this discussion to visit the discussion started by Trust Is All You Need, on my talk page here.

The revisions made by other users recently were not made in support of you. User:sgeureka was attempting to avert an edit war by appeasing the both of us. One user removed a section, and another reverted edits made to the plot.

The runtime on my version of the SE DVD is 119. I can't find my original, but when I do I will bring that time to the table. The cast section information that you are adding is based on their series characters. This information has nothing to do with the film. The team in the film are not "airforce soldiers", they are Airmen. The plot rewrite reads like a child's book report. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors, Let's all take a deep breath for one moment, and rather than making generalizations, let's focus on what should and shouldn't be in here.

I may be making an assumption (and forgive me if I am), but FlieGerFaUstMe262 seems concerned about the addition of information that is unsourced, or may be from questionable sources. That is an important concern. This is not to accuse Trust Is All You Need of editing in bad faith, nor to say that the information being added is necessarily factually incorrect, but the policy on verifiability is very clear: if it is not sourced, and it is challenged, it may be deleted.

I also sense that there is a concern about redundant information being added. Perhaps the information in question is already in teh article, but perhaps it belongs elsewhere.

Can we start with one or two issues and try and talk them out a little? LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was trying to do. Are you familiar with Stargate? Well, if you are, you will understand that the series changed or amended character history and events for its own sake. So far (s)he seems to have come around to understanding that. I believe we have resolved the issues for the most part. I changed the cast list to his/her format, which I do believe is better, but left out the "series bias" summaries. His/Her lead that he was adamant about duplicated info that was in another section, but the non duplicate info was left in. I did go in and just edit the information that was not suitable and leave the rest of the article the way (s)he wanted. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have some familiarity with the film and series, and I know of the changes you are speaking of. If things are running smoother now, then there's no need for me to get involved. Best of luck to you all on editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What is it with sourcing, the old version only had 8, this one has over 40. The sourcing in this article is much better. Most of the sourced i used are also used in the Stargate GAs on wikipedia. The only thing he seems to disagree with is how the information about the various charcters and the plot is written. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reveiws section

Hi, I recently updated (with four edits) the Reception section of the article. I included MRQE, which has all the reviews (except for Rotten Tomatoes, that is why that sentence is seperate), and it was from 90 reviews which scored 62/100. Interestingly, on IMDB, it has a 67% rating. However, In MRQE, I counted and it follows like this;

30 movie reviews with no ratings. N/A

25 movie reviews with ratings. 60%

35 CD and DVD reviews with ratings. 65%

The numbers amount to 90 total reviews with an average score of 62/100 for the movie. Therefore, I think this is how they calculated the reviews. Any thoughts?--24.23.160.233 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where does name come from?

"Stargate" - I think its funny that an american studio ("Stargate Studios") was founded with that name 5 years before the first film was made. --IceHunter (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not that funny, really. The term stargate - and its association with interstellar portals - has been around for decades. 205.250.9.39 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot of the Computer Screen

This screenshot should be removed since it is taken from the series and not the movie. 205.250.9.39 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The show used the same one from Abydos, will check out later. 67.180.241.40 (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No Trivia or Inconsistencies section?

There should be a section with fun stuff such as trivia and inconsistencies. E.g. how did they "dial" on the Stargate on Abydos? ≡ CUSH ≡ 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you're curious as to how they dialled the Abydos Gate, look no further than to the novelization; the Stargates are self-powered - all that's needed is to turn the ring in the right order and they'll fire up. And as for the proposed trivia section ... Wikipedia frowns upon those. HypertimeTraveller (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Archaeology section should be removed

The archaeology section should be removed unless some good content can be provided for it. The brief summary of the role of archaeology in the film's story is of little interest, and the relevance to the film of the general information about carbon dating, ancient Egyptian mortar, and pseudo-archaeology that follows is not explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.225.223 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the section is not relevant. I've removed it. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

User MisterShiney said: "Archaeology plays a key part of the film and is deserving of such notice. Please take your thoughts to the Article Talk Page". I agree with MisterShiney, archaeology plays a key part of the film and is deserving of such section. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the section lacks real-world context that is relevant to the film. The first paragraph is just extraneous plot detail, and the next two paragraphs are not directly related to the film. We have guidelines on covering science in films, seen at WP:FILMSCI. In particular, this applies: "Analysis should be introduced by reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science." We can talk about archaeology, but we have to find coverage about it as it relates to the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

True. On reflection, it may be an archaeology film, so is the Indiana Jones (franchise) and they dont have a Archeology section. So it really isnt needed it. Doesnt really add to the article on reflection. MisterShiney ✉ 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the removal of the second paragraph ("Archaeologists have and are still'...). The third paragraph is important, the movie shows the second version of archaeologists so should be an explanation. First paragraph can be integrated with the plot. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If we can find coverage about pseudoarchaeology as it relates to the film, we can reference such sources. If not, though, it is best linked as a tangential topic in a "See also" section. I did not see any useful results in Google Books Search, but this might touch on StarGate. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I was able to access it. I quote it at length here: "Emmerich’s second substantial commercial success (after Universal Soldier), came in 1994 with Stargate, the first Hollywood (MGM) film he wrote as well as directed. In Stargate Emmerich presented the story of a maverick archaeologist who has the linguistic skills to decipher the glyphs on an alien matter transporter that was abandoned on earth during the Egyptian Old Kingdom period. Voyaging through this transporter, the Stargate, with U.S. soldiers, archaeologist character Daniel Jackson discovers an alien who had enslaved early dynastic Egypt, as well as the descendants of ancient Egyptians kidnapped by the alien, and then leads a rebellion to free the humans from alien control. The film contains a set of obviously religious images and metaphors, particularly reworkings of the Horus mythology and includes the remarkable image of the archaeologist taking on a Horus-like role in resurrecting humans and killing the elder Set-like alien. Yet the images of Egyptian cosmology are revealed to hide aliens and alien technology. The plot explicitly links past alien visitation to earth, the notion that the human past was shaped by these alien space-travellers, the manifestation of this hidden history in archaeological objects, and the role of (alternative?) archaeologists in recognising or hiding this alien history. The message is subtly hidden within the narrative adventure but is purely pseudoarchaeological in nature. In fact Stargate is an homage to the pseudoarchaeological theories of Erich von Däniken, and Emmerich has publically acknowledged his belief in the ancient astronaut theory advanced by von Däniken and others.4 Viewers see this throughout the film, as the treatment of Jackson by sceptical, scientific archaeologists depicts how they are constrained by convention and incapable of recognizing the unexpected hidden history of humans, whereas alternative researchers advocating avant-garde ideas such as alien intervention in ancient history are shown to be correct. This message is reinforced by scenes that show that conventional archaeological interpretations have been wrong, such as the revelation that archaeological sites like the Egyptian pyramids are far older than archaeologists have thought; a proposition that underpins a good deal of pseudoarchaeological literature referencing Atlantis and other early, hidden civilizations (e.g. Peet 2005; Kreisberg 2010)." This is the kind of content that can be used in regard to the film. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If you it summed up in three sentences, it was nice to. Mention - explanation about "pseudoarchaeology" (and/or Erich von Däniken [1]) should be, maybe as part of plot? Subtropical-man (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I support removing the section. It's irrelevant and not particularly well written. The information belongs in the pyraminds and pseudoarchaeology articles. If it can be condensed down to several sentences, I may consider voting to keep it. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"If it can be condensed down to several sentences, I may consider voting to keep it" - I suggested it above, I quote myself: "If you it summed up in (to) three sentences, it was nice to" :) Subtropical-man (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I saw. Which is why I also added my thoughts on the subject. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The score is now 4 to 1 in favour of removal. Do we wait much longer before removing the subsection? I throw this question out to Erik. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can summarize the passage I quoted above into a few sentences and maybe see what else I can find. Depending on the amount of content that is ultimately put together, we could retain the "Archaeology in the film" section but replace the old content with the new. If there is not a lot of content, we could put it under another section and just remove the current one. I do not have any big time slots today, but maybe tomorrow I can put something together. Any additional references to that end would be welcome. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I removed the section (as it was awful and mostly not directly related to this film) before I noticed it was being discussed here. if archaeology and pseudoarchaeology are to be dealt with, better to incorporate into the text (i.e., something to the effect of "the plot of the film draws on fringe theories that aliens were instrumental in the construction of pyramids). We don't need a high-school level explanation of carbon dating in this article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I've refactored the section, eliminating the mini lectures (that sounded like narratives delivered to a 6th grade class on a field trip to the museum) to shorter summaries, as well as links to the relevant articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The book "Egypt before the Pharaos" is shown in the film - I have mentioned that now and linked to the Wikipage of the author.

46.7.56.247 (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC) M.

Removed. Trivial and the rest of the section has no sourcing to speak of. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Debatable edits

Debatable edits by IP. Conjecture of used of sockpuppuet. User Erik commented it, what other people think? Subtropical-man (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What I told Subtropical-man is that per MOS:FILM, the WikiProject Film guidelines for writing such articles, is that we do not include user ratings. The IP was removing user ratings, and I endorse this removal. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(Erik beat me to the punch.) Those aren't debatable edits. MOS:FILM clearly states "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Therefore the anonymous editor is correct. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so edit by IP can be considered as a correct. Regards. PS. IP 99.192.59.98, please login/register, I know that you are a sock puppet :) Subtropical-man (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you know what "sock puppet" means. I am certainly not one. Perhaps you are confusing having a dynamic ISP with being a sock puppet? (99.192.59.98=) 99.192.51.30 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Very funny :) Subtropical-man (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not making a joke. There is a difference between being a sock-puppet and just happening to have a dynamic IP. I do not have multiple accounts nor have I tried to pretend to be multiple people. Those are descriptions of a sock-puppet. I just have an ISP that frequently re-assigns the IP addresses. That's how a dynamic IP works. Please learn the difference before making further unfounded accusations. 99.192.90.239 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.51.30)

Actually, your IP changes everytime to press the reset connection button on your router. Whilst it is common practice to assume good faith when it comes to edits with an editor constantly changing his IP address and no account, it is very hard to assume good faith in the first place. Especially when said editor is edit warring. MisterShiney ✉ 08:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

French film

There seems to be some historical and current edit warring over whether this was a "French" film or not. Some of the back and forth indicates that there is nothing French about it, which does not appear to be true. One of the primary production firms is French (Studio Canal), and they later bought out the back catalog rights when Carloco (US) went bankrupt.

The current "sources" for the French label are beyond poor; IMDB is not a reliable source for this, and links to the french equivalent do not seem helpful. The standards set in the template suggest sticking to reliable databases such as AFI and BFI. Those two actually agree and list France, the US and Germany. Presumably Germany since Centropolis is German/US.

I would propose listing all three in the infobox, with the sources above, and leaving it out of the lead (as does the current version by @Mezigue:). Thoughts? Kuru (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Mezigue (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose this. The connection to a french Firm Studio Canal does not make it french. From Studio Canal's wiki, "StudioCanal's most notable productions from its early years include Terminator 2: Judgment Day, JFK, Basic Instinct, Cliffhanger, Under Siege, Free Willy, and the original Stargate movie. In those days, it was known as Le Studio Canal ." Should those movies also be changed to be called french? None of them even mention it. Even when they were co-produced by American firms, and filmed in America? Stargate the film is 100% non-french as far as production goes. @Mezigue: --63.143.225.22 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

White savior narrative in film

Offnfopt, the topic is a sociological one with a book written by a sociologist, and this is one of the films that is analyzed in the book. The perfect article about this film may or may not mention this topic (the article lacks any academic commentary), but at minimum it is a tangentially related topic that can be linked to through the "See also" section. If someone wants to develop a paragraph about this topic to put into the article, it can contain that link, which would then be removed from the "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the expanded wording an improvement? It is a good point, and I can provide this more detailed description elsewhere for greater context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Who rigged the bomb?

The plot summary currently states that Ra rigs the bomb to prevent it from being disarmed. Perhaps this is my cynicism in overdrive, but my assumption has always been that the military themselves rigged the bomb. In either event, I don't think it's clearly stated in the film. Thoughts? DonIago (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

In the film novelization, it's strongly implied the military rigged the bomb. But no, it isn't clearly stated either way in the film. HypertimeTraveller (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Nifty that my assumption may be the correct interpretation. Shame we don't have better evidence. I'll copy-edit the Plot if needed to remove any suggestion as to the responsible party. DonIago (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stargate (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116020402/http://www.davidarnold.com/ to http://www.davidarnold.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rottentomatoes.com/search/full_search.php?search=stargate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100930025640/https://www.legalmetric.com/cases/copyright/okwd/okwd_595cv00090.html to http://www.legalmetric.com/cases/copyright/okwd/okwd_595cv00090.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418013915/https://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/sci-files/cinema/stargate/index.shtml to http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/sci-files/cinema/stargate/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stargate (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106045733/http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/features/timetravel1.asp to http://filmscoremonthly.com/features/timetravel1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319003337/http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews2/stargatesg1s1.html to http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews2/stargatesg1s1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720205227/http://www.gateworld.net/the_stargate_faq.shtml to http://www.gateworld.net/the_stargate_faq.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

stargate confusing rights debacle

i am confused on who owns what in the stargate franchise:

Carolco Pictures sold off the rights to the film durring production, what i cannot figure out is either to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer or StudioCanal or to Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich.

i do knw that Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich gave the rights to the franchise to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer when they were working on their 1996 film Independence Day.

MGM retains the domestic television rights. The rights to the Stargate film are owned by StudioCanal, with Lions Gate Entertainment handling most distribution in international theatrical and worldwide home video releases, although Rialto Pictures handles domestic distribution under license from StudioCanal.

can annyone please clear this mess up?

Further reading

• Prince, Stephen (2000) A New Pot of Gold: Hollywood Under the Electronic Rainbow, 1980–1989. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles, California. ISBN 0-520-23266-6

References

i think i know about the rights history now

here is what i propose

during Production, Carolco Pictures, the production company who was independatly financing and making the film, sold off the rights to the film to Le Studio Canal , while they sold the rights to the franchise off to Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich, all In an attempt to raise more financing for the projected $90–100 million film, Cutthroat Island. Devlin and Emmerich gave the rights to the franchise to MGM when they were working on their 1996 film Independence Day, and MGM retains the domestic television rights. The rights to the Stargate film are owned by StudioCanal, the company who took over and finished production after they bought the rights to the film from carolco with Lions Gate Entertainment handling most distribution in international theatrical and worldwide home video releases, although Rialto Pictures handles domestic distribution under license from StudioCanal. can anyone please add this to the article?

References

The name "Abydos"

Sorry, I was apparently logged out when I made the edit, but the Bill McCay books use the name "Abydos" already, so it is not strictly a change made by the SG-1 authors. I would guess that the name is in the script and just never ended up in the dialogue, but not having access to the Stargate movie script, I can not sufficiently prove this. It could also be that the SG-1 writers used the movie continuation books as an additional source, or had access to the same notes McCay used. They were certainly aware of the novels, as I read somewhere that Rodney McKay was named as a reference to Bill McCay. Oddly, the movie novelization never calls the planet Abydos. The city is called "Nagada", and the real Abydos on Earth is mentioned, but the planet isn't named until the first continuation novel. -- Uliwitness (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Undue addition to lead

Please review this edit by 178.66.158.182 (talk · contribs). In my opinion, it is WP:UNDUE to edit the lead in this manner. All that the source claims is that the two plots are essentially the same. There's no suggestion that the Stargate folks intended the film to either be a rip-off or an homage or were even aware of the Twilight Zone episode. As such, I feel that while it may or may not be appropriate to include this information elsewhere in the article, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Possibly a moot point now as it turned out this was an IP who had edited previously under a different IP and was violating a block by editing this time time around. Still, leaving this here for awareness. DonIago (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced information?

Is there a reason why the behind-the-scenes CD-ROM is discussed under "Television spin-offs"? Kumagoro-42 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)