Month: July 2006

Dean Devlin, co-writer and producer of the original Stargate movie, told SCI FI Wire that he has struck a production deal with MGM and is developing the long-delayed sequel feature films that will pick up the story from the 1994 original—but not the mythology subsequently elaborated on in the SCI FI Channel original series Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis.

This almost definitely can’t be a good thing. Devlin has long expressed his displeasure with, if not active dislike of, the Stargate series. But, as far as I’m concerned, the show took the elements that really worked in the original film (the Air Force, the character of Daniel Jackson, the gate itself) and dumped — or at least didn’t rely on — the stuff that didn’t. The film starts going downhill, for me, pretty much the minute they figure out how to work the gate. The series, I think in large part thanks to Richard Dean Anderson, brought a little more levity and fun to the table.

But, regardless of whether or not a direct sequel to the film was a good idea, after long twelve years — eight of those (and counting) filled with a television show that the Sci-Fi Channel keeps reminding viewers is now the longest-running US science fiction program in history^* — wouldn’t it just be confusing?

The sequels would steer clear of the TV show mythologies, Devlin added. “That’s right,” he said. “We would just continue the mythology of the movie and finish that out. I think the series could still live at the end of the third sequel. So we’re going to try to not tread on their stories.”

But see, here’s the thing: that series, to say nothing of its spinoff show, is still going on. Most people who know Stargate know it through the series, and, even if they were a fan of the original movie, they may no longer be entirely clear on the differences between the two, where the mythology of one begins, where they do or don’t overlap. As far as I know, the show has never actually contradicted the movie, just gone off in many new and different directions. I mean, they even share a couple of characters.

“…The irony is actually because it was 12 years ago that we made Stargate, [and] part two was actually supposed to take place about 12 years later. We were just going to kind of age them up as actors. So it actually works out really nicely.”

Well isn’t that convenient!

Honestly, I can understand Devlin’s desire to create the sequels, to return to his own vision of the Stargate mythos and share it with others. It’s a perfectly understandable creative impulse. Personally, I’ve always prefered what others have done with that mythos, the series over the film, but I can’t fault Devlin for having a story he wants to tell.

I just think that boat has sailed, man. Let it go.

Given that it’s a musical, I’m guessing it will be closer in tone to (the relatively more comedic) Evil Dead 2 than the first film. It’s hard to imagine how something like [SPOILER WARNING] the tree-rape scene [/SPOILER WARNING] would translate to a toe-tapping night on the town.

At Readercon this weekend, China Mieville said, in his guest of honor interview, that one of the things he notices in both the audience for his work and in himself is a tension between a desire for otherworldly mystery and a desire for detail, detail, detail. He noted RPGs as an expression of this tension, a sublimation of geekiness within the rules and tables and worldbooks of the game that was often at odds with the fantastic potential of the material, and sometimes of the source material itself — he noted that the game of Call of Cthulhu seemed to utterly miss Lovecraft’s point: Cthulhu goes from being a creature so great and terrible that it can’t possibly be described or comprehended to being a creature with 100 hit points. (I may be mangling China’s argument, since it’s based on memory, so please blame me if you disagree, not him.)

The comments are worth a read, too, including this one from Cheryl (I’m assuming Cheryl Morgan):

I could go on at far greater length than you would want about role-playing games, but basically it all boils down to a philsophical difference between those who play them regarding the purpose of the mechanisms. Some people see them as a set of game rules that are there to be learned and exploited, just like the rules of any board game. Others see them simply as a useful underpinning to the simulation that should not be allowed to get in the way of the experience.

The argument you put forward is valid, but you might also ask whether an artist’s impression of Cthulhu (or a plush Cthulhu toy) devalues the true, mindboggling awfulness of Lovecraft’s creation. The answer is, “only if you let it.”

Harper Lee is the moral conscience of the the film, and we were looking for an actor who had composure and dignity, and a maturity of spirit, and a morality, and a sober-minded clear-sightedness. And people who have those qualities tend not to go into acting, just as a rule.