This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stargate (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is part of a former featured topic candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. | ||||||||||
|
|
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
That sentence is 93 words long and utterly perplexing. 172.212.112.188 ( talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
i am confused on who owns what in the stargate franchise:
Carolco Pictures sold off the rights to the film durring production [1], 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 [2] 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?
References
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, [1] [2] [3] 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 [4], 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
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stargate (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is part of a former featured topic candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. | ||||||||||
|
|
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
That sentence is 93 words long and utterly perplexing. 172.212.112.188 ( talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
i am confused on who owns what in the stargate franchise:
Carolco Pictures sold off the rights to the film durring production [1], 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 [2] 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?
References
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, [1] [2] [3] 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 [4], 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
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)
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)
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)