Jump to content

Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Wizard of Oz References

I think there should be a short paragraph about the references made to: Star Wars, Star Trek, The Wizard of Oz, and The Simpsons. I've heard talk about many Simpsons ones, but only noticed a few. I was watchin DVD commentary on an epsode and they said the simpson references are now out numbering the Wizard of Oz ones. (I believe this episode was Lost City 1)

Replicators

"The Replicators are a product of a humanoid android who was created by a human (most probably Alteran) scientist." In atlantis it reveals that they built them to defeat the warith. Peachey88 10:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I split it into a seperate article, leaving some high points here, to get the article back within size regulations. 21:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Season 7 spoiler in season 5 section?

As an anon edit just pointed out, Anubis's fallen state isn't revealed until later, yet we mention it in season 5. Should we modify this? JoshuaZ 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Season summaries

The seasons summaries are hardly season summaries at all. They just point out events that happen in the season and say what happens in relation to those events in future seasons. Most of the season summaries mention things that happen in future seasons, instead of retreading the events of the season itself. This needs to be changed. A few months ago I could have written them, but I don't remember the plotline of each season completely. bob rulz 00:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed a rewrite needed, but remember this page is meant to be an overall summary - we do NOT want a detailed summary season-by-season. Each season section should ideally have a brief outline of the major events and arcs of that Season, placing it in context with the whole. Brevity is a virtue here. Remember that we also have List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and articles for every episode.-- Alfakim --  talk  20:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't go into too much detail, but I am a firm believer in good summaries in addition to detailed descriptions on subpages. Too many things on Wikipedia have short, insufficient summaries on the main page followed by in-depth articles that take a long time to read. No, it shouldn't be excessive, but I believe that the season summaries can be summed up in one paragraph better than they are now. bob rulz 04:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the best form of summary would be more like setting up the stage of things. Rather than tell us what happened in the series, tell us what has already happened to build up to this point, and what may or may not happen. Spoilers are well and fine, inside of episode summaries, but not in season summaries. -Emhilradim 02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Jackson's sacrifice

"The scene where Daniel Jackson prevents a naquadria explosion with the use of his hands is possibly an allusion to an actual, similar accident involving Louis Slotin in the Manhattan Project." Would it be correct to say it is also reminisent of Spock's sacrifice in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?

Not really, seeing as the incident is almost exactly like Slotin's and it occurs on a planet which is at the same level of development.--70.23.139.250 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we add Addcontent.net to the external links section? It is a fan-run site about stargate, and it has a lot of info. I think the link would add to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.27.234 (talk • contribs) 00:47, May 30, 2006

Sure. I'm guessing you were reverted because the name "Addcontent.net" sounds like an advertising site, or at least something non-scifi/Stargate related, and the reverter didn't bother to click on the link. Armedblowfish (Talk|Contribs) 01:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no. Wikipedia is not an advertising website. We can't just add a billion fan sites to the links section. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Splintercellguy 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ya but isn't the wikipedia made better by having links to sites related to its articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.254.37 (talk • contribs) .
No it isn't. because if you have one, everyone wants to add their site, and that's a problem. The best links to have are ones to link directories, such as open directory etc. Please note I've seen this addcontent site trying to be inserted repeatedly here and other stargate pages. This is now becoming spam linking. If this continues, the site may be blacklisted as spam linker, this would mean that no page on English Wikipedia or its sister projects could link to it (links would be rejected on attempted saves). If we link to any sites it should be more notable and better ones than this (though I'd prefer one or two directories). CaptainJ (t | c | e) 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Link directories are crap. Anyone can put links in them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.254.37 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC).
And that is exactly why we shouldn't let anyone put links willy-nilly in Wikipedia articles! A link to a link directory lets anyone put a link one step away from Wikipedia. One link from us, to a site where there are a dozen links. Incidentally, the open directory project does have some criteria for accepting links (i.e. not just anyone can add one), but it still has excessive links. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 07:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
How is it one step away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.254.37 (talk • contribs)

I can see where this is going. Remember we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Answering your question does not add value to this encyclopedia. Adding a link to your site (hardly one of the top fan sites) does not add value to this encyclopedia. I won't engage in any more of this discussion, unless it is about making valuable contributions to Wikipedia. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


What about a link to GateWorld --65.164.18.178 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Longest Running Sci-Fi serial?

The article says:

On October 24, 2005 Stargate SG-1 was renewed for an unprecedented tenth season. This will make Stargate the longest running science fiction television show and the longest running cable show in U.S. television history.

--

What about Dr Who List_of_Doctor_Who_serials - which has been going (on and off) for significantly longer - both in terms of seasons and duration?

Does the "US television history" portion refer to both durations, or just the cable show part?

Dugo 23:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably both. GusF 23:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it means that Stargate SG-1 is a US show, whereas Doctor Who is a British show. User:Midnightblueowl

There are three ways of answering this question

  1. The page you linked to lists less than 200 episodes. By the end of stargate's 10th season it will have more total episodes.
  2. Doctor is a universe devided into sevral subseries (which can be considered diffrent shows). Just like the Star Trek unievrse has TOS, TNG, DS9 Voyager and enterprise, Stargate has Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis. Stargate SG-1 is one show. One series, making it last far longer than any subsiries of Doctor who or Star Trek.
  3. Doctor who is a british show and has only aried in the US recently, making stargate the longest running US show. Tobyk777 08:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a few corrections to this: 1) the numbers you were looking at as episodes actually refer to story arcs. There have been about 720 individual episodes of Doctor Who, it's just that many of them were multi-part stories. 2) Doctor Who isn't divided into many shows, like Star Trek was. It's one show that's been revived, but not in a spin-off format. The original ran from 1963 to 1989, then a TV movie was made in 1996, and now the new series began in 2005. You could conceivably make an argument that these are all different "shows," but the creators and the fans all consider it the same (and in any event, the original run is certainly one show). 3) The new Doctor Who has only recently begun airing on the Sci-Fi channel, but the original series has run off and on on PBS stations in the US since 1972. --Brian Olsen 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

pwned

change it to "On October 24, 2005, Stargate SG-1 was renewed for an unprecedented tenth season. This will make Stargate the longest running original science fiction television show and the longest running original cable show in U.S. television history." since reruns of doctor who have been playing on PBS, this might clear it up seeing as how Doctor Who isnt an original program of PBS... -Xornok 18:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture

Where is the article's main picture from? For some reason I don't recall SG-1 wearing those uniforms... --Tim4christ17 08:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh ... could it be the 1st Season? :-) --Dennette 10:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That could explain it - I haven't seen the 1st Season in a while. --Tim4christ17 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Series/Movie Continuation

The following is in this article and has been popping up in other articles..

"Because of these differences, some fans of the film consider the television series as its own separate entity, rather than a proper sequel to the film. Using some of Emmerich's notes, Bill McCay wrote a series of five novels continuing the story the original creators had envisioned."

This version is much better in terms of NPOV terms but I still question whether or not it should be included. It is definitely original research and point of view but it is a POV that I would say most people agree with to a degree. So what does everyone think? Konman72 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Until I'd seen the mentions in Wikipedia about it, it'd never occured to me to think of SG-1 and Atlantis as anything other than a continuation of the movie. Yes, there were some minor discrepancies - but there will always be discrepancies in developing works. Rather, I'd thought of the Stargate Movie/SG1/Atlantis works to be part of one canon, and the Stargate movie/novelization/sequel books to be a separate canon. One work (the movie) existing separately in two canons. --Tim4christ17 07:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


I read on Aint It Cool News that 2 more Stargate films are in the works. The new films will be based on the original movie, and that the television series should be considered an alternate reality of the Stargate universe. Lobot72 12:55, 13 August 2006

I added RDAnderson.com. It has a large database. PrometheusX303 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Stargate SG-1 cancelled according to GateWorld

Who ever it is that keeps putting the petition on the main article please stop! It'll only be reverted to the last good edit. WP articles are not the place for petitions. I like the series as much as anyone else but I dont need to see petitions to save a dying show each time i check this article. SimonD 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You might as well just accept that people will keep putting it up, when they feel so strongly. It probably best to allow the most accurate (least crazy) petition details. Otherwise your documentation of the phenomenon of Stargate is incomplete.

It is already linked here, no need for it on the article it will be reverted each time, I will request a temp edit block to anon posters if it continues SimonD 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.gateworld.net/news/2006/08/istargate_sg-1i_cancelled_iatlan.shtml

Nooooo!!!!! OMG sign the petition - http://www-dot-ipetitions-dot-com/petition/Stargate/index.html Morphh 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Wikipedia's spam filter (of all things) obliged me to disable the ipetitions link. Avt tor 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Give it a rest, no petition can save Stargate. Stargate was in its twilight years no matter what. Every year it became progressively more expensive to produce because everyone's sallarys got a bump. After 10 years, those costs started wearing into the profits. Combined with other factors, Stargate was bound to fade off. SG1 is finishing its long run, and its time this horse get a chance to rest. Alyeska 21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
All the same, I'd like it to go on just 1 more season. They're certainly not going to be able to tie up the current plot by the end of season 10. HaganeNoKokoro 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
They can tie it up in a single episode ... the Ancients step in and wipe out all ascended beings, including themselves, in a noble act of self-sacrifice. Problem solved. :-) --Dennette 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
So cliff hang it and do a miniseries. Alyeska 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The producer says the series will go on, we'll just have to see how. Source. Orta 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This sucks MarineCorps 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Stargate is the best TV show of all time, how can we let it end?!!?!?!?!? My reasoning for why it's the producers fault is here on the stargate project talk pages. There is a similar thread there. Tobyk777 05:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe this! I haven't known a time without Stargate (at least new eps) in 10 years! I've watched it since the beginning and this will take some getting used to! And why cancel it RIGHT after the 200th episode? To secure their place in the records books for longest Sci Fi series maybe? Also, 200 got a 1.9 rating which is the highest since the mid season 9 2 parter. I am thinking the best bet is a miniseries or movie of some kind. But the good news is that MGM wants it to continue beyond season 10 so it's possible another network will pick it up, although unlikely, it has happend before.

Faris b 07:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Secure their place"?!? Not even close... solid second, of course, but I'm not sure anything will ever surpass Doctor Who's run. (Any ideas on what the top five are?) --Ckatzchatspy 08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Doctor Who's run is up for debate tho, it hasnt been on every single year and it hasnt been the same series since it first came on.... its kinda like saying star trek is the longest running show.... if you count them all together.... -Xornok 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Even without the 2005/2006 episodes, it's still the longest-running series, with (if memory serves) 695 episodes running continuously from 1963 to 1989. --Ckatzchatspy 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As for SG-1, isn't it premature to list "2007" in the actors timelines? While the series may have officially been cancelled, and the episodes scheduled for 2007, I think the date should still be listed as "present" (or something similar). --Ckatzchatspy 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ive changed it back to "'present" for now. Also the series is not actually discontinued till MGM (who owns the series) says it is. SCI-FI just wont be airing it beyond season 10. Lets not jump the gun. -- Rafy08:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Humans from Earth?

It seems what we've learned from the Dakara superweapon deal, is that it was used to recreate life in the galaxy after the plague, but this contradicts what we learned from Teal'c (and the few things kept as canon from the movie) that the Goa'uld found the "first world - the Tau'ri" where all humans came from to other planets by the Goa'uld, if you take the Ancients' account as fact & the Goa'uld as lies then the Ancients are correct most likely and all other worlds ALREADY HAD humans on them. Which is it? Am I missing something here? 

       Faris b 09:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is not necessarily a contradiction. Given that a plague wiped out the Ancients, and that the weapon at Dakara was capable of (and we're told responsible for) seeding the galaxy for life after the ancients were gone; then we can assume that is what happened. The seeding resulted in a second evolution of humans on Earth, the Goa'uld, and other life forms. The Unas we are told were the first hosts of the Goa'uld. It is possible and likely they stumbled across humans on Earth, enslaved some, and the rest is as you say history. Mwhope 05:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to be breif. Remember when sg-1 first traveled to a Asgard protected world. There, the inhabitants said that sg-1 were from Midgard, which in Norwegian mythology (where stargate came up with the idea of Thor) is the center of the world, and place where everyone is born and resurected in the halls of valhalla. So I would say that the Goa'uld are speaking the truth, that the first center of human life was Earth Glisern 02:20 (gmt+1) 20 January 2007

Infobox image

Quick observation/question: since technically SG-1 is an ongoing series (though that may change soon), shouldn't the infobox image be an image of the current cast? We can move the old cast image elsewhere on the page (and add one of the season 6 cast, since Corin Nemec doesn't appear elsewhere). Virogtheconq 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Guess now would be a good time to change it since it was removed for sourcing questions. Morphh 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The infobox image should really be from the titles of the show like on the Stargate Atlantis page.--NeilEvans 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No more SG1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dont know what to say other than I have enjoyed watching SG1 and it will be sad to see it go. At least theres still Atlantis. --HeavyAmp 04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that 200th episode shows that they're giving up and throwing in the towel. Not to mention that the Atlantis episode was tired and played out. As much as I loved the show, I think they're done. --Matt 02:49, 23 August 2006

You do know that the 200th episode was supposed to be funny. I understand not getting the joke, and not thinking it was funny, but to think that it is evidence that they are "throwing in the towel" is totally absurd. Konman72 06:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly it isnt a joke :( http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=37607 --HeavyAmp 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not worrying about it. It still has 10 more GREAT episodes coming, Stargate Atlantis is still running strong (and hopefully for another 7 years like SG-1), another movie coming in a few years (as the rights have been sold for another movie), and producers say that another series might start on another channel (or another channel might pick up SG-1, either way). So even if SG-1 ends, there is still another movie and an ongoing series to keep the franchise going strong.- User:cjpwes

Stop with the online petitions!

People, the reasons your edits regarding online petitions keep getting reverted is the sheer fact that they are NOT taken seriously by networks because of the fact that a few choice people sign it about a couple hundred times. Even if you get a million sigs, sci fi will not care because it's an online petition. If you want results, make a REAL petition and try to get about a 1000 sigs THEN send it to scifi, if several people do this, it'll be taken seriously. I've seen petitions for cancelled shows in the past with over 200000 sigs and it didn't work.

Read internet Petition for more info on how they are not taken seriously.

Faris b 04:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also please stop putting 'savesg1' websites up, the producers have already announced SG-1 is ending BUT a new series might start, for god sake stop beating a dead horse it's been around for over 10yrs! Thats pretty good for a Sci-Fi series. SimonD 13:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be included as it is part of the cancellation. It is also beneficial and of interest to the reader (regardless of how you may feel about the series ending - good or not). However, it should be worded correctly and the link should be a reference and not a embedded web link - possibly also as an external link. Perhaps the effort is futile but it is what it is - part of the Stargate story and its fan base. Morphh 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
While the fan effort to save the show in general might be notable, another problem is that no particular fansite is notable. Online petition and support groups are a dime a dozen. Mucus 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it appears (if you simply look at the hit counts) that savestargatesg1.com is pulling ahead as the main site/nerve center for the campaign. As such, I think a link should be included. I agree that no petition site is particularily notable, though. 70.128.139.69

In response to Mucus's statement that "there is no particular fansite is notable" is false, as GateWorld has an entire article promoting the fansite Savestargatesg-1.com

I am aware of that, but I am a HUGE Stargate/Atlantis fan so don't preach to me after I say this.

There is NOTHING more shameful than to see a great show like Stargate have these "Save Stargate!!" links, it just looks bad, they aren't going to help, if I thought there was a chance in hell that Sci Fi would renew it, I would be at the front line rallying for it. I have experience with these things with several other hit shows that were cancelled by the networks.

Faris b 03:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Almost all online petitons are fardulent. Right now I could sign the petiton 2000 times. It would do nothing. The way to save it is to have people send physical paper letters and cards and things. That way, they know 2000 couldn't have been sent by the same person. Internet petitions are not taken seriously. Also, to have the article begging for support, makes the show seem unpopular and unsupported, both of which are false. I am as big of a Stargate fan as exists and I want the show to be saved more than anyone. I am rallying letter writing and other things among my friends. The online route will not work. Don't make the Gate community look desprate and helpless by begging in the article. Tobyk777 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tobyk and Faris, to have the link makes the show look bad. Perhaps, as Morphh said, it could be used as a reference rather than a direct link. So basically, "fans have formed websites devoted to saving the show[1]." Rather than, "click here to help save SG-1. This way the we aren't censoring the article (since the fact that fans have formed "Save SG-1" sites is notable), and we aren't advertising the site/movement. Konman72 06:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. I say we execute it imidiately. Tobyk777 06:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that is exactly what I thought. Yes, the other route of "fans have formed a website.." sounds infinitely much better. But still, I think it's a waist of time to even put those links on there. Why do online petitions even exist in the first place though? You would think it is pretty clear by now that they are futile.

Faris b 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not our place to worry about how futile online petitions are. They exist and they are a significant part of the story, so we have to mention them. Only including things that are likely to make a difference is OR. --Tango 07:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that they are futile, but this one is still notable. I have yet to see another save Stargate petition even get advertised, so it is the main one, and it has a large amount of signatures. Just say, "Fans have begun trying to rally support to save the show" and then reference both the petition and savestargatesg1.com and we will prevent censoring (to make the show look better) and include all notable material. Konman72 18:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think your change is the way to do it. Looks good Morphh 18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Tango, what you are describing is actually NPOV, not OR.
The fan reaction via petition is OR. We need some magazine article or something that says "and fans made lots of petitions to help save Stargate" for it to not be OR. OR isn't about being true or not, it's about having the information previously published, etc. No matter how much I love Stargate and want to support every effort to save it (I even went and signed that online petition, even though I agree that it will likely not do anything), this is Wikipedia, and OR is a policy. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Then just cite the gateworld article about the website. Gateworld is a reliable source and all the information is pertinent. Konman72 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

End Date

Okay folks lets stop crystal balling on the end date. Yes Sci-fi has not renewed the series. Doesn't mean its dead, or that the end episode will be shown in July. Lets keep the article accurate, and not speculate okay?? EnsRedShirt 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it couldn't have last aired in 2007 when it's still 2006. PrometheusX303 22:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That probably comes from IMDB, they're listed the last episode air date as somewhere in may, 2007. Don't panic though, remember showtime dropped SG-1 as well, and it only took 2 months for Scifi to pick it up. - 59.167.38.13 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of episodes off

I was checking around the episode guide and doing a a little counting. I also went to gate world and double checked. I took into account that some episodes were aired out of order. At the end of Season 9 it looks like the count is at 193. GateWorld lists only 17 episodes so far for Season 10. Yes yes, this means there is something up with the how 200 is the 200th episode including that it may have been shown out of order.

It appears that some folks are counting 2 parters (that were already given their own distinct episode numbers) and adding wrong. It could also be that they are counting "Children of the Gods as 2 episodes despite that its episode number is 01-01 and the next episode is 01-02. It aired on Showtime as a single episode folks. The fact that it was re-run and broken up on SciFi doesn't change this. Lost City is another. Nope sorry 07-21 and 07-22.

So if we take 193 (Seasons 1-9) +17 episodes of Season 10 that are listed at GateWorld...well you do the math. Unless someone can shed some light on this it should be corrected. I'll leave it for now, just in case. TheDevilYouKnow 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

actually, 2-parters, whether shown together or not, make up two episodes... COTG is 1.01a and 1.01b... therefore being 2 different episode... just cause you dont count like that does not change the fact that it is counted that way. 200 was the 200th episode... -Xornok 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
So it's being counted as how it aired on SciFi (this 1-01a and 1-01b nonsense)? The pilot aired on Showtime as a single episode. Since the original channel listing is Showtime it would be counted as a single episode.
no, its being counted as the writers, producers, etc count them... you think they're all wrong and played the 200th episode one episode too early? right, cause im gonna go with your method of counting over the way people actually involved with the show count -Xornok 21:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Just take a look on the original script http://media.dave.tv/sites/stargatesg1/screenplays/s01e01.pdf on page 47 you will read "STARGATE SG-I -"Children of the Gods (Redo)-PART TWO" there the second episode starts. --217.17.16.2 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Scifi - what gives?

What the hell is wrong with scifi that they're attempting to block MGM from selling the rights of Stargate to another network? Would it happen to be because they KNOW it'll do good and they don't want to loose money? Then why aren't they giving season 11 the go? What's 20 mil a season when you take in the account of the syndication bonuses and DVD sales and such?

Faris b 03:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree they're being stupid jerks right now. Tobyk777 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Driving towards a wall

Well, even if we did get a season 11, the show is basically driven itself into a wall now, all of the SGC's allies are going to be Ori-fied/killed it seems.

So far:

  • Chulak overtaken
  • Dakara destroyed - Jaffa nation is fractured
  • Langara (Jonas planet) overtaken, which most likely means that Jonas is dead as he would never bow to the Ori
  • The advanced Hebridans have been overtaken as well, which means they've been reduced from a society 200 years ahead of Earth to peasants
  • This whole easy win "anti-Ori weapon" thing makes it too easy. I mean, what if there was an "easy button" for defeating the Goa'uld from the start?
  • The Ori being too unbeatable, I mean a dozen Ha'tak, 2 Daedalus class ships and an Asgard ship couldn't even stratch them, that's too powerful.
  • The Sodan destroyed; although, I suspect they were only introduced as a plot device for those few episodes because I'm sure Teal'c would have mentioned them at least by season 7 if they were so "legendary".
  • The Jaffa losing Ha'tak like crazy, at my count they've lost about 19 so far (assuming they have about 100 or so) and the fact that a Ha'tak can be taken out with ONE hit is rediculous.
  • Earth making 4 ships in 4 years and having 2 of them be destroyed by the SAME enemy in the same year.
  • Adria having that shield that can block the Dakara device's energy, it was stated in "Threads" that no shield of any kind would prevent it's effects from working, wasn't it? I know it would have been too soon to kill her but they could have said it was a lookalike or something that got killed, I know, it sounds rediculous too but at least I'm thinking, unlike the writers.

I'm sure there are other things I'm forgetting at the moment but I'm guessing at the end of the season, Earth'll have no allies except the Asgard and possibly the Nox left as everyone else will probably be destroyed.

Tell me, WHY do these stupid writers have to destroy everything when they think the show is going to end/actually ending? Why not end it on a good note (The galaxy is safe and happy, no Goa'uld/Ori/Wraith or anything). Why are they going to have the whole galaxy ravaged except Earth?

And here is what I expect to happen at the end of season 10:

  • Earth is out of drones in the Ancient outpost
  • Ancient outpost destroyed just like Dakara
  • Chulak pulverized
  • Number of Jaffa left no more than the number of Tok'ra left
  • All Earth allies dead except for the Asgard and possibly Nox
  • They won't find the Anti-Ori weapon but yet another stupid clue that leads to a dead end
  • Ba'al will remain alive and hiding somewhere (Not that I wan't Ba'al gone but they're going nowhere with that storyline, either make him an Earth Ally or just leave him be)
  • Possibly one more Earth ship but it'll probably be destroyed as well.

I mean, think of all the friends Earth made over the past 10 years, now all these folks will be gone, I know most people don't care but I do:

Land of Light people
Cartago (sort of)
Countless other planets with primitives
Cimmeria
K'Tau
Juna
Latona (but they might not be destroyed as they have the Sentinel)
Salish planet (but they might also have some means of defeating the Ori)
The people that were in that dome to protect against the toxic atmosphere (Revisions) they were relocated so they are probably doomed now, they would have at least had half a chance if they were hidden in the dome.
P7J-989 people (with the virtual reality chambers) destroyed

Anyone else have any thoughs?

Not to mention the other potential allies like the Tolen, who could've been a BIG help. Also you might consider the Unas as manpower in fighting the Ori, though i'm not sure how far that'd go. Plus with the possibility of seeing the Furlings, they too could be wiped out... personally I'd almost be interested in a show similar to star trek's DS9, where we could see beyond the first line of defense / first encounter and deal more with establishing ties with the other worlds.

Faris b 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they're going towards a wall. While most of the stuff you said is true, the whole point of the current plotline is that devastation is supposed to happen. Stargate has never had a sad ending. The writers are going to find some way to kill the Ori and save the galaxy by the end of season ten. THEY KILLED THE REPLICATORS AND GOA'ULD IN ONE EPISODE. THEY COULD EASLIY DO THAT WITH THE ORI. The worse the situation, the better SG-1's final acomplishment of dfeating the Ori will be. I think they want the situation to seem horrible, so in the finale of season ten, SG-1 won't just go out with a bang, it will be a nuke. Tobyk777 05:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty stupid to destroy every ally the SGC has made over the past 10 years in 1 season, why do they do this? So that no one in the future can ressurect the show like the original Star Trek was? Because the ST movies would have been borderline impossible if they defeated the Romulans and Klingons by season 3. Why does Stargate have to do the opposite? Sure they expressed interest in a movie but they'll never be able to have more than 1 if they keep this up.

What about the Orbanians and the Galarans and such? If it wasn't for the former, Earth wouldn't have Naqahdah generators. They're advanced, I'm sure they'll be destroyed as well, but there's a chance they won't, Adria said the galaxy would be converted in a year, I guess if they get lucky, they might not be destroyed. I don't know, I just hate to see every good race that SG-1 came across be destroyed.

Faris b 05:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site! This discussion page is for discussion editorial issues about the main article, not fancruft like this. Please take these kinds of speculations someplace else. --Dennette 05:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What's wrong with a discussion about the direction the show is going?

Faris b 05:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. We are having a lagitamate discussion. I see no problem with talking about something here. Ignore this guy and feel free to repspond to what I said. Tobyk777 05:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said above,I don't like them destroying everyone in the galaxy except Earth. I mean, unless the ships will shut down when the Ori are defeated, there is still the need to destroy their ships and such. Yeah, I wasn't a fan of the way they killed the Goa'uld, I was hoping for an all-out assault on the system lords by Earth, the Tok'ra, Asgard and the rebel Jaffa, as in a massive space war or something like that, not the replicators destroying the Goa'uld then Earth destroying the replicators. Sure that was pretty interesting, as I always wanted to see Replicators vs. the Goa'uld. I still have a hard time believing that not one single replicator remained behind in the Asgard galaxy. And where the heck is Thor these days? We haven't seen him since season 8. Kvasir seems to be his replacement.

Faris b 06:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with a discussion about the direction the show is going? What is wrong with that is that's not what the site is used for. If you want to discuss the show, go to another site like http://www.sg1archive.com/ ~Tydamann

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stargate_SG-1/Archive_2&oldid=1142316905"