Talk:Stargate (film)

message: :"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible sentence in the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quotes section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Influences & Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reveiws section

message: "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)
thread_title:  Where does name come from? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Screenshot of the Computer Screen

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Trivia or Inconsistencies section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that the section is not relevant. I've removed it. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If you it summed up in three sentences, it was nice to. Mention - explanation about "pseudoarchaeology" (and/or Erich von Däniken ) should be, maybe as part of plot? Subtropical-man (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Yes, I know. I saw. Which is why I also added my thoughts on the subject. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Very funny :) Subtropical-man (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Debatable edits

message: 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 ).  Thoughts? Kuru (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Mezigue (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  French film 

message: , 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)
thread_title:  White savior narrative in film 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who rigged the bomb? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The name "Abydos" 

message: Please review this edit by . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Undue addition to lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misplaced information?