Pages

Monday 12 December 2011

Retrospective - Stargate



Kurt Russell as Colonel Jack O'Neil (Stargate, 1994) 
For many of you, the mention of the word Stargate might bring about thoughts of Richard Dean 'Macgyver' Anderson travelling to various destinations across the universe with his SG-1 team, smart mouthing his superiors and getting himself out of ridiculous situations with just a tub of moth balls and a roll of tin foil. Or it might remind you of the later series Stargate Atlantis, or even the recently cancelled Stargate Universe.

But for me, the mention of Stargate brings about thoughts of the distant and mostly disregarded 1994 movie, directed by Roland Emmerich at the highest point of his career. Unlike the TV show, the 1994 movie featured a rather restrained Kurt Russell in the role of Colonel Jack O'Neil. James Spader (Boston Legal) is Daniel Jackson, a role later taken over by Michael Shanks. There is no sign of Samantha Carter here, or the loyal Jaffa Teal'c. Infact, the only actors to appear in both the Stargate movie and the SG-1 TV series are Alexis Cruz as Skaara and Erick Avari as Kasuf. Everyone else is either absent or recast. So for those watching the film for the first time after seeing the TV show, it won't feel much like familiar territory, but the same underlying formula is all there.

Stargate was quite successful on its initial release, launching Emmerich and co-writer Dean Devlin into the mainstream, and presenting them with the opportunity to make more widely recognised movies such as Independence Day in 1996.
Richard Dean Anderson as Colonel Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG-1)
It's no wonder Stargate spawned a TV spin off that ran for 10 years and 10 seasons. The film was rich with ancient conspiracies, Egyptian mythology, new age 90s digital effects and well structured action with a sweeping music score by newcomer David Arnold, who had apparently been working in a video store before he was hired for the movie. All of these elements seemed to spark the imagination of its audiences, and the Stargate itself was the plot device responsible for literally opening up a whole world of franchise opportunity. Quite a number of real Ancient Egyptian historians believe in the existence of a Stargate, some having published extended texts aiming to prove their theories. Others think the pyramids were built by aliens, and all of these theories form the basis of the film, with the character of Daniel Jackson being the voice for these historians and their far flung ideas. It's a movie that answers so many 'what if' questions, and due to a very enthusiastic level of research on the part of the writers, it pulls it off in a convincing fashion.

Patrick Tatopolous' Anubis guard design
But in my mind, there's a far more obvious reason for the success of the movie. The narrative features a team of United States Airmen travelling to a desolate desert world to save its primitive inhabitants from the clutches of an oppressive overlord. Now is that tapping into the mentality of American audiences still sore from a Middle Eastern conflict or what?

The movie's Horus guard design
If I'm completely honest, I prefer the movie to any of the subsequent television adaptations. The film feels much more grand and cinematic, as you would expect. But in addition to that, the concepts are presented much more believably, and the integration of ancient Egyptian cultural reference gives it much more focus than the amalgamation of ideas presented on the show. The realisation of the Horus and Anubis guard costumes by Greek designer Patrick Tatopolous ranks as one of the most memorable and ridiculously cool costume designs in movie history, and Spader and Russell still feel like the definitive versions of their respective characters even after all these years. It's the character progression within the movie that sells them, depicting a Colonel O'Neil tackling the loss of his son by going on an apparent 'suicide mission', while Dr. Jackson is ever the face of optimism despite seemingly insurmountable odds.

Ra's original alien form before the
TV show abandoned the concept

Disappointingly, when adapting Stargate to the TV format, there were a number of changes made that create noticeable inconsistencies between the film and SG-1. In the movie, there were no such characters as the Goa'uld, who are represented in the show as host stealing parasitic worms. In the 1994 feature, Ra is depicted as a bipedal 'Roswell' type alien and described as the last of a dying race who takes human form through possessing a selected host. Other discrepancies between the film and series include various unexplainable character name changes, and a new arrangement of stargate symbols that almost completely re-engineers the gate dialling concept from the film. As you might expect, these inconsistencies have been integrated into the series canon via explanations by fans and extended fiction, but they're still there as a reminder of the original concepts set in motion by the 1994 film.
The Goa'uld parasite as depicted in SG-1
But despite these minor problems, I'm still a fan of SG-1. The first seasons in particular were excellent, with their plot lines expanding upon the themes touched on in the movie. Although the differences between Kurt Russell and Richard Dean Anderson's take on Colonel O'Neil(l) are enormous, both versions of the character are entertaining to watch. But as the series went on, things became overcomplicated, and a noticeable shift from the thematic material of the movie distanced a lot of viewers, including myself. But it could hardly have run for 10 seasons without introducing new concepts along the way, so this was inevitable.


Interestingly, Dean Devlin has explained that he always intended for Stargate to be a trilogy of films, but the rights were snatched up by MGM and rolled into a TV show before they had chance to put a second movie into production. He's now stated as recently as July 2011 that he intends to see the sequels made in an alternate continuity to the TV series, and apparently MGM is interested. Now that Stargate has run its course on TV, perhaps a new movie from the original creators is not such a far fetched idea?

How would you feel about another Stargate movie? Is it too late to resurrect the original cast? Should it be a sequel to the TV shows? Or should it be left well alone?

Monday 5 December 2011

Sequels, Remakes, Reboots and Re-adaptations

The same origin story twice within 10 years
Every time I read an article on the Internet discussing an impending remake of a beloved classic from 80s cinema, I scroll down to see comments like 'Hollywood has run out of ideas.' With all respect to the comment author, this is simply not true.
I totally agree that current film is overcrowded by sequels, remakes, reboots and re-adaptations. But a lack of originality is not to blame for the derivative and cyclic nature of the film industry. We are.

There are thousands of original ideas and potentially groundbreaking screenplays out there waiting to be adapted into films, but they never get made. From the perspective of a film producer, who is investing millions of dollars in the production of a film, it's much safer to throw money at something that already has an established name, and therefore an existing audience and a guarantee of revenue. Think about it. Even if you're disgusted that your favourite cult movie is being given a fresh coat of paint, you'll go and watch it anyway out of curiosity, therefore selling a ticket that another original movie won't.

Therefore the only 'original' films that get off the ground nowadays are usually funded by independent investors, and although these producers have a much more limited budget, they have a more artisitic agenda and are more likely to support up and coming filmmakers. But unsurprisingly, these films rarely do well at the box office, suffering from a low marketing budget and lack of commercial exposure.

With all things considered, it's worth remembering that although the Hollywood machine delivers an abundance of terrible movies, the franchise/remake mentality has also generated material like Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and James Cameron's Terminator 2. But franchise films of this quality are few and far between, and usually the product of a master director with a good footing at the studio.
But money is still the driving force here, as although many big name directors started out as artistic independents, they soon became household names and reliable marketing tools for the studios to sell their films with (Tim Burton I'm looking at you). Think of how many movies you've been to watch because the director was responsible for another film you already like, and think of the motive behind the slugline on the poster that reads 'From the Director of...'
When it boils down to it, there are many consistent ways that Hollywood markets it's films nowadays, such as with a big name director or producer, a big name star, or by selling us a sequel or a remake of something we already like. But it's all about selling a product, not high art.

The latest pointless prequel
So essentially, it's quite simple. The film industry supports films they think will fill seats, and refuses to support those that don't. So if you're so fed up with all the reboots and remakes, don't watch them, and instead spend your hard earned money watching a lesser known film from a more deserving director. It's us - the viewers - that decide the popular trends in this massive industry, but we all seem so obsessed with seeing the same material reinvented over and over again.