| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Stargate vs. Enterprise | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 10 2003, 08:31 PM (1,130 Views) | |
| Wichita | Sep 10 2003, 08:31 PM Post #1 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Despite the number of seasons it has been on the air, I never saw an episode of Stargate until this past spring/summer. All told, I may have seen 10 episodes - several from this season. There is one major difference that I notice between my reaction to Enterprise and Stargate. I watch Stargate - I want to know how the episode is going to end. It's literally an effort to keep focused on Enterprise - and on a couple of occasions last season, I actually switched the station and forgot to go back to see the end of the Enterprise episode. So what do you think? How would you compare Stargate to Enterprise? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Sep 10 2003, 09:08 PM Post #2 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
The difference is that I actually LIKE Stargate. When it first came out, I thought "this will be crap... it'll never be like the movie!" I caught an episode now and then (hard when you're underwater), but didn't really start watching until Season 3. By then the only reason I had Showtime was to see SG-1. SG-1 is intelligently written, there are none of the weak copouts we've seen Berman/Braga use, and the show stays within its framework. The characters are believeable, too (even though sometimes Carter is just a little TOO intelligent). Berman and Braga could learn something here, but it is way too late. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Sep 10 2003, 10:21 PM Post #3 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I really enjoy watching Stargate. The characters are well developed…all contributing greatly to the dynamics and believability of the show. The scripts are well written…lacking the less than tasteful cheesy dialogue that can sometimes be found with Enterprise. There is always an interesting and adventurous story told each episode (with a clear beginning and ending). This is in addition to the overall story and battle being fought against the Ga’ould that continues to bind each and every episode together. What really clenches this show for me, is the ancient Egyptian theme and the archaeological emphasis throughout this series. Very good sci-fi show!!!! I can only hope that one day I will be just as enthusiastic about watching an episode of Enterprise.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Sep 11 2003, 12:05 AM Post #4 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
The difference between Enterprise and SG-1 also resides in knowledge. Someone who has done research into history, archaeology, and mythology writes SG-1 episodes. Enterprise is being written by people who are just making it up as they go along, with the occasional sop to the TOS fan. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Sep 11 2003, 12:29 AM Post #5 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Boy, you guys are making that caption a few weeks back on TV Guide all too true. You know, the one that said forget Star Trek. Stargate has the advantage of being fresh. And, in all honesty, I was never that impressed with the movie (I guess my bias towards ancient astronaut "theories" is showing ). It also does not take itself too seriously.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Sep 11 2003, 09:28 AM Post #6 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Definitely not swid. This situation is very similar to the Star Trek vs. Star Wars issue that was just recently discussed under the Anti-Star Trek post. IMHO, Stargate and Star Trek are not mutually exclusive. Loving Star Trek doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate another sci-fi show on its own merit. And because I appreciate and enjoy watching another sci-fi show, doesn’t mean my allegiances to the lasting Star Trek franchise has faltered. It just means that I have noticed certain deficiencies in Enterprise that I hope will work its way out someday. In the meantime, I have other shows (TOS, TNG, VOY, DS9 reruns and Stargate) to fill the sci-fi entertainment gap that Enterprise sometimes creates.
B) Go Trek!!
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| desainte | Sep 16 2003, 06:20 PM Post #7 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
StarGate vs Star Trek . . . Although I am a Star trek fan I believe that Stargate is superior to all the most recent Star Trek fare . . . whether it be Voyager, DS9, or Enterprise. I don't know if the Trek writers are running out of ideas or what but he shows have become hard to follow in places and, although I used to collect the various Trek episodes religiously when they were released, I haven't bothered with Enterprise. I think it may be because, as stated above, the ideas are fresh and they seem to have a lot of knowledge of Archaeology etc. I also think it's because the characters are believable (and I'm a big fan of Richard Dean Anderson). So, in almost every aspect I think Stargate is FAR superior to Trek. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| JTK | Sep 22 2003, 02:06 PM Post #8 |
|
Cadet 1st Year
|
It's hard to define it. But production values on Stargate are much better. Actually it's good SCIFI and not impressed with itself. I enjoy the theme song and the music for each scene which lends a lot to the emotion it brings out. It doesn't depend on a sexual interlude with each episode to get attention which makes it good pure SCIFI. The lead female Amanda Tapping aka Captain/Major Samantha 'Sam' Carter, PhD actually toned down her appearance by choice as not to take away from her team role and gave her more credibility to her spot on SG1. She is attractive but not a sex object as with T'pol on Enterprise. P.S. I love the editing option on this site!!! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Sep 22 2003, 07:02 PM Post #9 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I want to get into SG-1 my self, I have seen a few episodes and what I saw was great. But I would really like to see it from the beginning so that I can get the full story (not just bits and peaces). I have thought about buying the box sets, but they are only on season 4 and there is no guaranty they will go the full run. If they don’t do all the seasons I will be out money and every unhappy. So I think im going to have to what till its all done and they have all the box sets (I just hope I can find all of them then). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Sep 22 2003, 07:08 PM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
You do realize that I'm keeping a catalog of all of these references. I want to see the Malurian system--the one eventually destroyed by Nomad--in ENT. I hope they *do* go there some season. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Sep 23 2003, 07:12 AM Post #11 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Since Ent is no longer aired in my area, Stargate is all I have to watch in the Genre. The major differences. The female characters are intelligent and add to the storyline. They have a fulltime writing staff, and director, Ent has B&B and whomever can stand to work with them. Stargates special effects are story driven. Ents stories seem to be FX driven. The actors in Stargate seem to have a mature view of thier characters. Everyone at Ent seems to have a juvenile view of thier characters. Stargate occasionally pokes fun at itself and the genre. Ents level of humour is no more sophisticated than site gags and physical humour. Other than that I think they are the same .Anyone see the Stargate "TV guide" cover? it read something "move over startrek here comes Stargate" Ouch! All in good fun ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Lilac | Sep 23 2003, 08:13 AM Post #12 |
|
Painting the board red
|
To be brutally honest, I really cannot see why Stargate is so popular. I've tried watching it many times, but I find myself bored to tears by it. It's strange because it has many of the qualities I like in scifi, but I just can't enjoy it. I have no idea why. It may be more "an American thing" - something that I, a very English person, wouldn't really "get", although my brother quites likes it. I don't know - it may just be that I don't find the characters very stimulating - characters can make or ruin a show for me.. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Sep 23 2003, 08:25 AM Post #13 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I think a great deal of the credit goes to Richard Dean Anderson, Lilac. In the few times I have seen him in interviews, he has come across as someone who is very comfortable with himself. I believe he brings that same quality to whatever role he plays. His "Jack O'Neil" has some beliefs and takes some actions that are very different from his "MacGuyver" character, but I believe him in either role. While I loved Scott Bakula in "Quantum Leap", I still don't *get* him as a Starship captain. There probably is an element of the cultural refence to it as well. On last nights episode, someone said to O'Neil, "You speak your mind". His response - "That's why I don't talk much." I laughed out loud at that while I just cringed at Bakula's "I am doing the breast ... I mean, best, I can" line. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 8 2003, 10:31 PM Post #14 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Yes, I am reviving a dead thread ....
I have now gotten so into Stargate that I am considering the purchase of a DVD player so that I can play Stargate DVD's (which I also haven't bought yet). A recent episode (repeat) of Stargate brought home some of the reasons why I am enjoying it more than Enterprise at the moment. It actually was the first or second episode of the series, but I just saw it for the first time. When O'Neil and Teal'c meet for the first time, there's a connection although Teal'c's people are seriously trying to kill O'Neil and his team. No long drawn out speeches about survival trips through the Outback - just a look, raised eyebrow, and, when all appears lost, a hearfelt plea from O'Neil for help (all in 2 or 3 sentences). I believed more in that "connection" between them (shown in 15 minutes of airtime) than I did with Archer and Trip in 3 years of episodes. The following episode didn't "forget" what happened - like Enterprise so often does. O'Neil consistently defends his decision to trust Teal'c in the face of opposition from others. Stargate seems to be able to pull in what has happened on past episodes and keep the story and character development reasonably consistent throughout. There is also more happening in Stargate than in Enterprise. Although there is a Big Four on that series, there are still any number of minor recurring characters who bring depth to the show - reminding me of DS9. More than that though, there are real people in scenes. Enterprise will show an occasional crew member in the corridor or mess hall, but often times the backdrop to scenes are empty. With the exception of guest stars, conversations not involving the major 3-5 characters on Enterprise are non-existent. (Apparently 77 of Enterprise crew are mimes.) On that first season episode I saw the other day, there was a soldier (think "red shirt") that had more lines in that one episode than Mayweather as had in Season Three. When the team enters villages, everywhere you look there are people living their lives. (A poster on another board swears that Enterprise makes it actors speak slowly deliberately to "fill" time. When I see what Stargate does with approximately the same air time, I have to agree.) One of the final scenes of that early episode really highlighted the difference. O'Neil, his team and the refugees are under attack from the air. After telling other to take cover, Anderson goes down on one knee raises his staff weapon to fire at the fighter plane.... and so does Teal'c. It appeared instinctive on both their parts and involved no dialogue. It also provided a visual shot of these two men mirroring each other's actions - they were "warriors" despite being from very different backgrounds. In addition to being visually stunning, the shot was also, of course, a cheesy rip-off of the General Patton firing, with his handgun at a fighter in WWII ... which brings me to my final point. Stargate is not high art - it's just entertaining. I cared about whether or not they survived the aerial attack despite the fact I knew the planes were computer generated and the heroes always live. Somehow they tell a nice little story and make it work. So why can't Enterprise? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Dec 8 2003, 10:58 PM Post #15 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ Chemistry among the performers perhaps? That was something that TOS had. TNG developed it over time (it just seemed a bit forced early on). DS9 seemed to have it from the outset and VOYAGER seemed a bit hit and miss to me. Enterprise, apart from isolated moments seems to be missing this... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Enterprise · Next Topic » |


). It also does not take itself too seriously.
This situation is very similar to the Star Trek vs. Star Wars issue that was just recently discussed under the Anti-Star Trek post. IMHO, Stargate and Star Trek are not mutually exclusive. Loving Star Trek doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate another sci-fi show on its own merit. And because I appreciate and enjoy watching another sci-fi show, doesn’t mean my allegiances to the lasting Star Trek franchise has faltered. It just means that I have noticed certain deficiencies in Enterprise that I hope will work its way out someday. In the meantime, I have other shows (TOS, TNG, VOY, DS9 reruns and Stargate) to fill the sci-fi entertainment gap that Enterprise sometimes creates.
B)
3:28 AM Jul 11