Talk:Stargate Universe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Michael Shanks Rumor

Rumor proves to be untrue from: http://www.michaelshanks-online.com/news/newsarchive014.shtml

18 December 2006 Spin-off rumors put to rest

Over the last few days there has been some speculation regarding a 3rd series in the Stargate franchise, and the reported news that Michael Shanks has been approached to star in the series.

We have just received confirmation from Michael via his publicist that the information regarding his reported involvement in the series is "completely unfounded and unsubstantiated. No one has contacted Michael with any such news/offerings/ideas, etc."

As far as Michael is concerned, this is "just an unfounded rumor."

GWatson • ^TALK 03:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

2008

2008 is one month away and the article says it is still in pre-production. I thought it was going to start production if mid-2007. What the hell is going on?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.78.201 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No news, so we can't report anything. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was supposed to start production in 2007 but they can't start it yet because they have to make the SG1 movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.17.166 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 December 2007

Well, then it should be changed from early 2008 to unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.228.170 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a guess, but the writers strike may have something to do with it not yet going into production.87.194.114.231 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as know, Brad Wright is a US-American who can't write anything until the strike is over. I think I even read that in an interview. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

well i say: that none of you have acurate sources and are only sating opinions and thoughts. none of this information can be taken as correct unless you know people or know alot about them or yet know someone who knows that person....--Hawkey131 (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New News

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:zQ-P_N6olGIJ:www.gateworld.net/news/2007/10/istargate_universei_revealed.shtml

don't tell anyone i told you, it's leaked off the site and was taken offline, i believe its part of a viral marketing conspiracy ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.69.5 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be found on this website. Scroll down. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.146.140 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A google-cache of a forum post of a cut-and-paste of the text of an article that was never actually published ... I don't think you can get any further from the definition of 'reliable source' if you tried. Please don't reinsert this into the article. --Maelwys (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Other "Universe" articles are being converted to (franchise) articles, (Highlander (franchise) and The Matrix (franchise) for example), this one should probably do it as well. - LA @ 10:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that this was another venture. I thought it was an abandoned main article. - LA @ 10:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaked Series Premise

I am sure that someof you have hear about it. The plot details for the series were leaked on GateWorld and deleted. Should we add them to the article even though it was not supposed to be out yet? SG-17 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable reference to cite then yes, otherwise I'd wait until we've got something firm. Tom walker (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally, GateWorld has released the information they have at [2]. Richard Jackson (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

"It is "a completely separate, third entity"[3] – as opposed to Stargate Atlantis, which was created as a spin-off from the first series Stargate SG-1."

So what was the second entity? If it was Atlantis, the phrase "as opposed to" is incorrect; if it wasn't, then the second one should be mentioned. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

SG:Universe is a third entity that happens to be separate, as opposed to Atlantis as the second entity that was not fully separate. The grammar can probably be tweaked, yes, but it's not really high on my list to ponder about. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

K, thanks :) 90.212.120.95 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Preview of the ship

Has anyone thought that the ship at the start of star gate ark of the truth is a preview of what the ship will look like in this series. I know its speculation, but the guy does have a book with pics of the star gate on his desk before he leaves. Might be mistaken, any thoughts from anyone? Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Alteran ship that bursts out of the mountain in AoT? It COULD be I suppose, but given how early that is in the timeline [[3]] (before the original migration to Earth) that this is probably antecendent technology. I'm kinda hoping for an Orion class vessel but I suspect it's a little too recent.

I just hoping for consistency but I'm certain the producers won't want to be bound by precedent set in SG1 or SGA.. I think that's why its a "completely unrelated" to the other two. Proberton (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stargate Pentavus

In 2004 a series of short stories were published named stargate pentavus... the story involved the SGC sending a team to the central hub of the stargate system via the ninth chevron...am I the only one who smells a rip off here, I'm a big fan of stargate but even I despise it when people plagerise.

The link to the short stories (note the date published at the top) http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2119543/1/Stargate_Pentavus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.148.137 (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, its fan fiction based on characters, ideas, concepts, and plot based on another source, the Stargate franchise. Who is plagerising who? If your fanfic stories are licensed and approved by the people at MGM or whoever owns the rights to the Stargate franchise then they more than likely have a legal, and if the fanfic is for profit, finacial stake in it. If its not, again, who is plagerising who or at least taking another persons creative work. Its like drawing a picture of superman eating a banana on mars with cowboy aliens behind him playing basketball with a hamster and tring to make profit on it. Its illegal because you do not own superman. Besides the only thing the story you point to and Stargate Universe seem to have in common is the use of the ninth chevron. More similarites would be needed to call it plagerism and even then its based on teh Stargate mythology which is not owned by whoever did this fanfic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.33.244 (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Its like drawing a picture of superman eating a banana on mars with cowboy aliens behind him playing basketball with a hamster and tring to make profit on it." I wasn't aware the fanfic author was trying to make a profit, so how does this analogy really work? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

exactly mgm owns anything that has stargate in its name, fan fic isnt creativity-owned at all and thank god for that. Dioxholster (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Character Section

Just to say that this last sentence at the end of the section sounds completley like a fan boy's rant, please correct me if i'm misinterpreting this sentence but to me it sounds more like a character bash than an encyclopedic article.

'and that while much of the initial fan reaction to these character breakdowns has been negative and that "the assortment of characters that make up the character breakdown are certainly an atypical collection of heroes, far-removed from the skilled likes of Jack O'Neill, Samantha Carter, John Sheppard, and Rodney McKay – [...] there's a damn good reason for that.' --81.98.179.183 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This sentence is so far the only reliable/"official" acknowledgement of bad initial fan reaction, and that the inofficial character breakdown is not totally made up. If you can paraphrase that information to a better encyclopedic tone, please do so. I am also sure that once more/better information is available, this sentence will be removed. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

italicization

Shouldn't the ship's name be italicized as opposed to quotated (e.g. Destiny as opposed to "Destiny")? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I don't think that Image:StargateUniverse.jpg should be included as it's not the actual logo for the show... is it? Purple Paint (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fanart. I don't remember the policy on having fanart in articles but I haven't seen much those images recently... --Tone 16:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think we should use "fanart" since...well, it just doesn't make any sense to use it. I'll remove it and if someone disagrees then they can state their case here. Konman72 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. It was a nice image, but it gives the wrong impression of being official. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it has no use in the article - Dinnerbone (^Talk/_Cont) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's back. Should it be removed again? AstérixSméagol (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a different image now, and it's a picture taken directly from the MGM website, i.e. it's from an official source and it's the best we currently have. It will be replaced if a new official logo gets released. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

End of Atlantis?

"If the show is picked up by a network, the most likely scenario is that writing, preproduction, and casting would occur over 2008,[3] and filming commence no earlier than February 2009. Statements by Wright have indicated that the airing of Stargate Universe is planned after Atlantis has concluded its run."

Does this mean that Atlantis will be ending after its fifth season? If that's the case, could it be added to the Atlantis page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.146.123 (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No. It just means that Universe will (likely) not start before Atlantis is cancelled, whenever that may be. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

But, if they're developing Universe for release in 2009, that would make that the end of Atlantis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.146.123 (talk • contribs)

Where does it say that they are developing Universe for release in 2009? And even if they were, what does this have to do with the Atlantis article? The producers are thinking: Atlantis_cancelled => Universe_can_go_ahead; not Universe_gets_greenlight => Atlantis_must_get_cancelled. Atlantis will be totally unaffected. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the first of no doubt many press articles to come about the now-official pick-up for Universe: [4] I've added the reference and done a tiny bit of updating to the article but it can be mined for much more information and a flood of new data should be available over the coming days and weeks. - Dravecky (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Atlantis cancelled does = Universe go ahead. Though I'm not entirely sure that Atlantis wasn't cancelled to give Universe the go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.141.124 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Either way, we lost Atlantis which sucks, I loved Atlantis, I hope the movie does it justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.213.40 (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Real shame to lose Atlantis. That show had not yet jumped the shark - although you could see the determination to end it in the removal of key characters. I just hope that SGU keeps the same standards going - as we are getting very short of ongoing quality science fiction. I also hope that an arrogant Canadian scientist is somewhere among the crew! 87.82.18.98 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame to lose a great show, but I understand wanting to end things on a high note and not let it get stale. This all seems a little like Stargate: Voyager to me. The original Stargate idea was fresh and entertaining. I hope they don't lose what made the franchise special by taking a page from the their science fiction predecessors. In the end whatever they make I will inevitably watch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.24.64 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead character edit warring

Resolved

 – Carlyle got cast as a regular. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, how about instead of leaving comments in the source about how such-and-such source says so-and-so, you actually stick a ref tag after Carlyle's name? Perhaps list Carlyle with a ref to the MGM source, and a "(possibly)" afterward with a ref to the contrary source? --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's make a pro-con list:

• Pro listing:
  • A few dozen "reliable" sources say RC is starring as the team leader in SGU
• Con listing:
  • Producer Joe Mallozzi says the official sources are wrong in at least as far that RC is not the team leader of SGU (no comments otherwise)
  • Dr. Rush's name was not part of the initial casting calls for main(?) characters
  • Listing RC as "possibly starring", even with refs, is as true and possibly misleading as saying "Sean Connery (possibly)" stars. Robert Carlyle or Robert Carlyle sound like the appropriate representation, but that's so silly that I won't even propose it. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, and leaving information out of the infobox is not going to hurt anyone for the next couple of weeks (unless Mallozzi gives us the answer in the next few days, at which point this discussion becomes moot).

– sgeureka ^t•c 21:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Mallozzi confirmed that Carlyle wouldn't be leading the 'expedition' not that he wouldn't be the lead character, an article from MGM themselves however, confirms that indeed he will be the lead character. I've left a reference with the change.--Ebeneezer Goode (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I remain suspicious because it's all so fishy and vague, but I guess it's time to acknowledge that if the main cast spoilers were indeed wrong, the other producers would have said something by now. Please don't blame me for my persistancy, instead blame WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and my Lost foiler experiences even when "reliable sources" are involved. Seeing that two other actors have been cast per Wright (via Mallozzi's blog today), I expect a new announcement soon that hopefully puts these/my doubts to rest. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

“2. Which famous actor would you like to see as a series regular in the Universe?” - BW: Robert Carlyle. Got him.[5]. I am marking this as resolved. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The real air-date for the first Episode or Two-Hour Movie.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=61531 This clearly states that the first we will see of the show is in the summer of 2010... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.156.119 (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering this article was written in 2008, "next summer" would refer to summer 2009, and everything is how it should be. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fire

According to this, the fourth episode is to be called fire, and the source is from one of Mallozzi's log. Should we trust what the blog says, the only proof is from the following statement

PG15 writes: “Water? I might as well just start the Gateworld thread about Brad Wright’s 104: “Fire” then. Heh.”
Answer: Pretty much, yeah."

Should we really trust what that says, because in my opinion, that's just a guess. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been regularly reading Mallozzi's forum answers and blogs since season 6 of SG-1; that's six years. He loves to tease, and I believe he would have skipped this question if "Fire" wasn't the name of the episode. Plus, "Fire" is an almost self-evident episode title in this case, and {{future television series}} warns that "The information [in the article] may change". Having said that, http://www.gateworld.net/universe/s1/ doesn't include "Fire" yet (i.e. they think his answer was too vague), and I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they considered Mallozzi's answer to be too vague for wiki-inclusion either. Depending on how strong feelings are about the title's inclusion or non-inclusion, a compromise would be to cite Mallozzi's words in the section intro, but leave the title out of the table. It is likely that Mallozzi will mention the episode title again within the next few weeks, so the ep title can be added again later with a better ref. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As it's a guess it's not worthy of inclusion until we get something more concrete. Rehevkor ✉ 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's indeed "Fire", as confirmed by Mallozzi on Jan30.[6] I added it to the LoE. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Any comment, text, or writing by Mallozzi is pretty much automatically reliable in regards to the Stargate franchise, considering he's in charge of the entire operation, regardless of whether he writes it on CNN.com, his blog, or under a confirmed username on some message board. rootology (C)(T) 19:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

False Information

Since the only source mentioned says other names why do you people insist on putting in wrong and false names? Gune (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Airdates

I read on a GateWorld article that the airdate maybe October 2, 2009. I know this is uncomfirmed, just an estimate, but should we make a not of it anyway, because it is [so far] the only possible official thing yet? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to add info to wikipedia where the source begins with the words "If you are writing this down in your day planner, be sure to use pencil." – sgeureka ^t•c 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of non-free images

The article currently uses two non-free concept shots of the ship, File:StargateUniverse shuttlebridge gal.jpg and File:StargateUniverse CorridorHub gal.jpg. The images do not have the necessary upload information including an appropriate fair-use rationale and should technically be deleted unless someone adds that information. But I think at least one, possibly both of them don't have to be in the article in the first place (remember wikipedia's m:mission to be a Free encyclopedia). I think the images can be replaced with the sentence, "The Sci Fi Channel published concept art on their website" and link there. Comments to retain, remove one or remove both images? (Edit: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is the basis for my bringing up this issue.) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I support their removal. The article doesn't discuss the images themselves, and as such they're just serving to decorate the article and not meeting WP:NFCC#8. Citing the public release of the images in a sentence similar to what you said would be the best route imho. Someday there may be enough critical commentary or production information to warrant using similar images to illustrate it, but for now we have no such details. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!

whats up with all the spoilers. the show hasnt even started and people already are writing useless stuff about what happens and who dies. thats crazy. Dioxholster (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILERS and WP:NOTCENSORED. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

appreciation

For what it's worth, I want to thank and congratulate the contributors to this article for keeping it 100% verifiable with reliable sources and bereft of unnecessary copyrighted content. Cheers, us. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Y"?

Is changing all the references to "SyFy" [7] a matter of crystal balling? Such a change has not happened, nor do we have the foreknowledge that it absolutely will. For that matter, all of the reliable sources in the article refer to the "Sci Fi Channel", and changing them without any verification seems antithetical.

Furthermore, with regards to this (now changed) section: "The series was given the official greenlight for a 2009 debut by SyFy on August 22, 2008, shortly after the cancellation of Stargate Atlantis had been announced." This happened in our past, and the green light was given by "the Sci Fi Channel", as there was no other on August 22, 2008 (2008-08-22). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care how the channel is named in the article since this will become a non-problem in a few months anyway. We just have to hang in there until the name is officially changed. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

But that's the caveat: there is no "SyFy" right now, and referring to it as such before it has actually come to be is ambiguous and potentially incorrect. Despite announcements to the effect, we have no 100% certification this change is going to happen, and it should remain pointing to the correct location until such a change happens. 3¢ — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with pd THOR's idea, we should just take the 'wait until the channel name changes' approach, but until then, the Sci Fi channel is still currently called the Sci Fi channel, not SyFy. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to propose adding a note to the article that Sci Fi is going to renamed and leaving everything else intact, but I see this has already been done. I think this should stop all edit-warring (which is all I want to avoid), and if it doesn't, a hidden comment can be left there pointing to this thread. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant to this article that they're changing their name, a hidden comment maybe but not a note like that. Rehevkor ✉ 21:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I (like probably many others) just want to stop edit-warring, and if hidden comments or non-essential sentence fragments in the article accomplish this, then I am all for such minor nuisances to prevent bigger ones. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but this is an encyclopaedia, anything that damages or disrupts prose like that in an article should be avoided. That's what comments are for. This article is not a place to report news on Sci Fi's name changing. As is shoving irrelevant information in the middle of a sentence is just going to confuse the casual reader. Rehevkor ✉ 22:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Dean Anderson appearance

I have found some information about Gary Jones' and Richard Dean Anderson's appearances on SGU. Don't know if this helps much because the information is fairly vague. http://www.gateworld.net/news/2009/04/richard-dean-anderson-will-be-on-stargate-universe/ – Black Sabre (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mostly incorporated, as GateWorld's news coverage is generally reliable for use on wikipedia. In case of doubt, always stick to the facts and leave out all parts that constitute speculation or synthesis. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

inconsistencies in reporting on the framing/backstory of the show

I'm really confused here. gateworld via google cache says that destiny is ship 2, with the gates already having been seeded. Most of the other articles [8][9][10] say that the ship "wasn't meant for being inhabitated" How the hell can that be, if the second ship was sent as an exploratory vessel? It would seem that that gate with 9 chevrons was on the 2nd ship rather than the first, so why do they (and specifically carlyle) say that so often? I can see how stuff might fail after a million years or so, but it still seems like shoddy writing, or carlyle not understanding the show, to say that it was "never meant to be inhabited", as that was the whole purpose of the show. Also, carlyle says that it's got a 'darker edge', whereas the reuters article mentions that it will target a "younger audience". another miscommunication? boombaard (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As the template says at the top of the article, "[This article] may contain non-definitive information based on advertisements, a website or interviews. The information may change as the date of the series premiere approaches." How the fictional universe works is not really the main concern of wikipedia; it's all made up by defintion, and it would not be surprising if Carlyle said something out of unfamiliarity with the series when the producers had years to come up with the backstory. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New episodes - April fools?

Joe Mallozzi just posted this picture at his blog ([11]). JM said a few days ago that only two episode slots are still open. The first few episode titles in the image sound plausible but then again ep #20 is a sure hoax. There will certainly be IP attempts to insert these titles, so it's better to discuss how to procede. Chances are fans will ask JM about the titles in the next few hours/days, and he'll clear up the issue soon.

• 9. "Justice"
• 10. "Space"
• 11. "Divided"
• 12. "Forebearance"
• 13. "Noneplussed"
• 14. "Prudence"
• 15. "Havoc"
• 16. "Sordid"
• 17. "Penumbra"
• 18. "Marriage"
• 19. "Death of T.C."
• 20. Reveal team back on Earth all along. Destiny is only V.R.! [Virtual reality]

– sgeureka ^t•c 00:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you would hope people would realize that this was a April Fools joke. Bit stupid to be revealing a huge plot line in an episode title. Made me Lol majorly though. Mricebreak (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The same list of episode names was still up on the whiteboard this week.[12] Since the titles of eps 9 through 10 were already known upon first release of the image, and since ep 11 turned out to be called "Divided" for real, it's not foolish to assume now that more ep titles are correct, but I am not going to be the one making the judgement call where the ridicule ep titles begin. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Distant Future

The article says that the show takes place in the present day, as opposed to SG-1 and Atlantis, which take place in the distant future. As far as I know, SG-1 and Atlantis take place in roughly the years in which the episodes were aired, with a time-travel episode taking them to the distant future of 2010 in one case.

64.80.108.52 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless my English grammar fails me or we're speaking about different sentences, the article says that SGU takes place in present time like SG-1 and SGA, not unlike them - Like the first two series in the franchise, Stargate Universe will take place during the present time, not in the distant future.[3] – sgeureka ^t•c 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Like the first two series in the franchise, Stargate Universe will take place during the present time, not in the distant future." This means what you intend it to, no worries. Mayhap 64.80 is referring to something else? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New GateWorld interview with BW and RCC

Sumner, Darren (April 2009). "An Expanding Universe – GateWorld talks with Brad Wright & Robert Cooper". GateWorld. Retrieved 2009-04-22.

The above has lots of goodies for this article and may replace some of Mallozzi's blog posts (interviews with reliable "independant" sources are almost always better than self-published non-independant sources). I'll try to rework this article with this interview over the next few days. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The highpoints of the interview are listed below. The individual points will be removed once they have been incoporated into the article. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Finished. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Recurring or starring cast?

The cast status of Ming-Na ("Camille Wray") and Lou Diamond Phillips ("Colonel Telford") is still not entirely clear. I was hoping for Joe Mallozzi or Brad Wright to comment on the situation sometime, but they haven't so far. Now that two months have passed since the initial (ambiguous) press release, I've collected evidence for both sides to see if Ming-Na and Phillips can/should be merged into the the main cast now. I actually intended to do so a few hours ago, but I am not sure anymore and instead drop my analysis here in case someone else has better evidence or judgment. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that they aren't starring	Evidence that they are starring / Counter evidence
Wray and Telford weren't part of the originally leaked casting calls. Wray's casting note for the pilot ep said she might be possibly recurring.[13]	There were no leaked casting calls for Rush, and Robert Carlyle is now confirmed to be starring
Having many well-known actors costs a lot of money, the story asks for character sacrifices for shock factor, and three or four major deaths are confirmed for the first six episodes.[14] Think what happened to bigger-name actor Robert Patrick playing Colonel Sumner in the pilot of SGA.	Wray is alive until at least "Life", ep 7. (I think the last we've heard of Lou Diamond Phillips was him on the set on April 6,[15] which could be the pilot or already another episode and thus could count for or against his main cast status.) SGU is claimed to have a higher budget than SG-1 and SGA and can pay for more well-known actors.
Joe Mallozzi[16] and at least one reliable online newspaper (IIRC, I can't find it anymore) treated the casting of Christopher McDonald (who we know is just guest-starring) as if he was part of the confirmed main cast. The issued press release for the cast could just as well be intentionally misleading to not give away a character death like with Col. Sumner. Joe Mallozi refused to answer a fan's question about who was a regular and who was recurring in February, saying "Sorry, no can do. That would spoil the groundless speculation." [17] GateWorld was unsure what the press release meant for the cast status of Ming-Na in February.[18]	Ming-Na and Phillips were named as "cast" among the confirmed main cast in a press release in February.[19] Concerns that MGM and SciFi lied in their press release could also be described as paranoia from misinformation. ;-)
The first name of Telford still hasn't been revealed.
	Ming-Na and Phillips are included in the (so far) only released cast image and haven't been treated any differently by the producers and the media than the confirmed main cast.
	According to Robert C. Cooper in the last GW article, Stargate Universe has "eight or nine characters" as an ongoing part of the show, but only seven actors have so far been really confirmed

Gateworld

Can Gateworld, specifically their episode guide, be considered a reliable source for episode names? They don't seem to provide any sources.. Rehevkor ✉ 13:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, they do provide sources in the episode articles themselves.. we should really use those sources direct though. Rehevkor ✉ 13:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. :-) GW is good for interviews and for news that can't be found elsewhere, but it's still a fansite and should only used when absolutely necessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Darkness and Light - One- or two-Parter?

Instead of edit-warring - should we treat Darkness and Light as a one- or two-parter as long as it's not 100% officially clear? AFAIK, the two sentences below are the only official mentions of the episode(s), so what GateWorld etc. have to say doesn't matter.

• Brad Wright shifts gears after putting out both Darkness and Light, looking to hammer down the story for episode 13.
• From there, we headed over to the Destiny set where Peter DeLuise was directing Bobby, Louis, and David in scenes for Darkness and Light.

– sgeureka ^t•c 06:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a twp-parter that started out as a one-parter named "Fire".[20] Resolved. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

TJ

Yesterday 5/6 2009 Malozzi posted a picture of Alaina Huffman in character costume and on the costume you could clearly see the rank bar of a Lieutenant on her colar... So shoulden't we change the part that she is a master sergeant?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.196.27 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Was the actress in her character's uniform; mightn't she have grabbed the wrong blouse for the impromptu photo-op? Was it a costuming gaffe? Maybe you're seeing a version of the character from an alternate quantum reality? Our interpretations of such material is original research until we have a reliable source explicitly stating anything. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On MGM's newly update Stargate site its lists her as 1st Lt now. Link is http://stargate.mgm.com/view/character/168/index.html Kosridge (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Consistency of "and" and "&"

Episode 1, 2 and 3 have as writers "Robert C. Cooper and Brad Wright" while 11 and 12 have "Joseph Mallozzi & Paul Mullie". It was twice reversed by Sgeureka claiming: it's a writer team who always use an "&". While for Stargate Atlantis both are used, SG-1 uses almost exclusively "&".

To clear things up, which is used (for everything) "and" or "&"? It's quite banal but I like consistency, especially in the same table. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What they're "credited" as, or what they prefer to use, has no relevance here, article should be consistent. Rehevkor ✉ 14:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

JM said on GateWorld forums a few years ago that it's a legal thing that they get credited with an "&". Anyhow, if I recall correctly, JM and PM stopped writing episodes together around season 9 of SG-1 anyway, i.e. most (maybe all) episodes since then have been written by one of them exclusively (for example SGU eps 119 and 120). If the trend of the past continues, those episodes will nevertheless be credited as "Written by Joseph Mallozzi & Paul Mullie", but it's too early to tell. I don't mind if this article lists the one writer or the writer duo, but the word and is technically wrong either way. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So change "Robert C. Cooper and Brad Wright" to "Robert C. Cooper & Brad Wright" for the first three episodes? Since there is no real difference between the two. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no standard way for how to combine individual writers. You can use and, a comma, a semicolon, an &, .... The show credits have used the word and in such cases, so that's what I've always used so far (here and elsewhere). But instead of discussing the pros and cons of this, we could also use that time to actually improve the article with stuff that matters (and earn some brownie points with folks who are critical of changes). The MGM website is a good place to start. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a big difference between using "&" and "and" when crediting writers. "&" is used for a team that wrote a script together. "And" is used when one writer rewrites the work of the previous writer. "Consistency" does not trump screenwriting credit standards. "Robert C. Cooper & Brad Wright" means that they worked together, at the same time, to write a script. "Robert C. Cooper and Brad Wright" means that Robert wrote a script and then Brad took it and rewrote it. DragonsDream (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Episode Airing Dates

I don't know how to change TBA to the dates that I found at [21] and I was hoping that somebody else would be able to change them.--Kluckie (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Look and learn, this is how adding airdates is done, hope you know how to do it in the future. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

title card

Anubis 10545 (talk · contribs) uploaded a new version of File:SGUTVlogo.jpg recently, screencaptured from the new trailer. I think the previous version is more representative of the show's actual logo as demonstrated elsewhere on the official site, whereas the lens flare that was added in this iteration seems to be more an artifact of the trailer than an aspect of the logo itself. Does anybody have any input on the matter? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think that the previous version of the title card should be used until we see what the title on the opening sequence looks like. However, I'd be fine with this version or the previous one, as there is not much difference in either version of the title card. Black Sabre (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Lens flare is just decoration for the trailer, not actually part of the logo. Rehevkor ✉ 22:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasters

an IP address keeps adding a table that is unsourced, redundant and unnecassary, yet is insistant that the table stay, despite going against at least three other editors. What do you think should be the best plan of action? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You could request semi-protection. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Awkward language in "Premise and Themes" section

There is an awkward-sounding sentence in the section of the article entitled "Premise and Themes":

"The differences between good and evil will be less apparent, as the ship will be populated with flawed and unprepared characters who were not supposed to go here."

The last phrase is inconsistent with the rest of the sentence. First, use of the word "here" is unencyclopedic; I believe the appropriate word is "there". Second, I get the feeling that it was copied verbatim from the source; if it is, it belongs in quotes.

Pottersson (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

serialisation

"SGU will be more serialized" "There is a conscious effort to avoid making SGU too serialized"

I realise both quotes are cited, but surely we should have one or the other? Perhaps stick with the later statement?

213.120.222.100 (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Either that or a line to recognise the contradiction. Tom walker (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a contradiction. It's going to be more serialized than SG-1 or Atlantis, but they don't want it too serialized like in Lost. Ophois (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

title card redux

Since Anubis 10545 (talk · contribs) seems to average 1-3 edits per month, I don't know if he'll get the message I left for him at his talk page (User talk:Anubis 10545#SGU title card) in due time. I'll C&P it here for us to discuss please.

With regards to this image, the most recent version you uploaded cannot be claimed to under the licensing that's already there, and needs to get new sourcing, licensing, a detailed fair-use rationale, etc. Considering this, and considering WP:NFCC#1, I wonder if you would consider the previous version that can stay libre-licensed and more widely-used than the new one. I would also point out the precedent at House, where contributors there extracted the libre elements and have a representative image that can be widely used across the project without running afoul of the non-free content policy. What do you think?

— pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the image Anubis 10545 uploaded as it was not PD and doe's not meet WP:NFCC#1. Powergate92Talk 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Filming

There should be a remark on how different Universe is from other Stargate-franchise. Filming (esp. on space-scenes) is much more like Battlestar Galactica with its shaky close-ups and zooming effects than the 'traditional' Stargate SG1 or Atlantis series.

Also Destiny is way 'dirtier' to look at than the very clean and tidy Atlantis/... 130.83.244.131 (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I THINK remember Rush mention in somewhere in the first few episodes that Destiny predates the building of Atlantis. If I find it, I'll get back. Paul Roberton (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The external shots of the Pentagon

The external shots of the Pentagon, which I assume are the offices of O'Neill and his staff (including Harriman I may add)... the nerve centre of Homeworld Security? Paul Roberton (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasters. Do we really need it?

Some users keeps adding International broadcaster tabel in article! Is this information really necessery! If you think that it is, then explain why!Vilnisr (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it saves time (easier) to find the date ya looking for when ya in a hurry. Plus if there is more that just 1 season like Eureka, those date will be added on too Shanedehe (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2009

Admin comment Shanedhe, please do not edit war. You have reverted the text multiple times, under your account and as an IP, contrary to the revert guidelines. Please reach consensus here first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything against the idea of having something there, but the most recent version of said data was wholly unreferenced and, ergo, unacceptable in the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia is a on-line encyclopedia, not tv guide, and it doesn't need all dates from all broadcasters, only the firts air date of season and episode, there are too many countries and broadcasters on planet, but it's possible to make a separated page and add a link in broadcast section! Consider it!Vilnisr (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It breaches WP:RS... which means remove.... okay?. --TIAYN (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The info and sources are in the article intro. Powergate92Talk 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It will be close to impossible to find references SGU broadcasting in non-English countries. --TIAYN (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What doe's that have to do with this? Powergate92Talk 05:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the other SG articles and the whole lot of popular-around-the-world-TV articles, broadcaster tables get so long that they are usually left out of the article. (If someone comes to en-wiki to learn where a popular TV show airs in his country, he can usually find the information easily through the interwiki links.) Since SGU will very likely be shown all over the world too, I think it's best to not start a broadcaster table at all. This article version had a nice paragraph on all (or most) of the broadcasters in the English-speaking part of the world. Just bring back that paragraph (i.e. prose) under a new section called "Broadcast". Prose is better than a table to prevent the information from becoming a deletion-worthy pile-on mess, and can be kept short and usable for just English-speaking countries by adding "In the English-speaking world, SGU airs ...". – sgeureka ^t•c 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if we are to add a big tabel of all the countries were the show is broadcasted, we needs references. Which will be close to impossible to find!. --TIAYN (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Again the references are in the article intro. Powergate92Talk 20:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but most broadcasting tabels includes other countries, seen Eureka for example. The user wants is like this, he has even given various examples of it. --TIAYN (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What for? Why this table is so important and necessary in article? If someone just want to show where Universe was (will be) shown, then he can simply make a 'Stargate Universe international broadcast' article page and just add a link in main article, so he can put there all countries and dates all over the world! just leave alone main article!Vilnisr (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No Vilnisr - YOU explain why the rest of the world should be excluded. This site is accessed by the world, donated to by the world, and also for the world.--IceHunter (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Reception?

Any info on the show's reception yet? That is all. --Kallath (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

From a cursory glance at mos to the community and websites, from the SciFi forums to Hulu, it seems the general reaction is not positive. However, there is a disappointing lack of verified reviews from credible and noteworthy sources. --76.118.51.154 (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

IGN has reviews of Air (see: Air 1 and Air part 2) and Darkness (see: [22]). I don't know how useful they will be. [SCΛRECROW]^{Cross-Com 2.0} 11:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

By the looks of things it's not too good, and I'd have to agree; the plot's the same in every episode and there's no 'bad guy'. But we're only 8 episodes in (as of 15/11/09) and there's still plenty of chance for development, so I don't think this section should be added until at least half way through the first season. 220.245.127.197 (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It would seem a list of reviews are located here, [23]. I think as mentioned above they are mostly based on the earliest episodes and not the more recent ones. I would agree to wait before making a reception section until mid season. I think things arent as clear yet with the series, but from what i seem theresz equal praise and critiscism thus far. Does anyone know if there will be a mid season break?., that may allow more time for reviews to appear on the web about the first half of the season by reputable sources?Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

reception (cont'd)

Sorry but I strongly disagree (that we should "wait" before adding a reception section). When did Wikipedia add guidelines that TV series couldn't be evaluated before X episodes were shown (for a value of X exceeding 8, I might add)?!

Instead, I added a modest reception section myself. Feel free to elaborate on it, but please don't knee-jerk revoke it - this page deserves and demands a reception section!

Cheers, 213.66.219.48 (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My concern of adding a reception section is as stated above; if reviews are only available for the pilot and 4th episode its difficult to formulate a fair recpetion of the series (reception of the pilot though is completely possible at this stage) if the other episodes arent taken into account its not quite fair to judge a series only based on one or two episodes (though it seems a review of the most recent eps was included in your addition). But, I agree though that a reception section is important and should be developed so long as its using reputable sources are included, I do not disagree with including it (I just think time should be given to collect the best sources possible to keep the section fair and consider enough epsiosodes of the series). Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

reception - only US newspapers

Is this worthy of a globalise tag? Please add other views than 1) mainstream media and 2) US media.

Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking. Ωphois 22:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Does such a tag exist?Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, see Template:Globalize. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks didnt know about the tag. Just my thoughts on this; I know the show is aired on Sky tv here in the uk. There would probably be a review on the web from a uk based group(Im not familliar with which ons are reliable though). I imagine theres probably something out there that would be appropriate. As its written though right now with only american papers, i would guess the tag would be apppropriate(any other thoughts out there?), but Im sure the section has the attention of many others and is continously being improved and may not need the tag (or need it for long). Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

@Ophois: I am asking for references from other sources to add to the Reception section than traditional mass media, and sources outside the US. Currently the section only refers to US daily newspapers, except Hollywood Report, which still is from the US, and still is close to the mainstream entertainment industry. What do viewers in the rest of the world think of this new Stargate franchise? The article currently does not say, which is why I brought up the Globalize template. And what is the opinion of others than traditional entertainment reviewers? Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ming-Na as Camille Wray??

I'm not knowledge enough in the ways of Wikipedia to do this myself... but Camille Wray (played by Ming-Na) is most definitely a main cast member. She's not even featured less... she's been given more to do than Greer and T.J. anyway. Can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.7.77 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ming-Na is cast as a recurring character, not a main character. Greer and T.J. are both scheduled and credited for 20 episodes, the entire first season, while Wray is only scheduled to appear in 9 episodes. And unlike the rest of the cast is not credited in the opening credits. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ming-Na was credited as a main cast member in the pilot "Air". In subsequent episodes she was then merely a guest star. But in the mid-season finale "Justice" she was promoted to main cast member again for some reason. I guess we'll just have to see if she retains that status in the remaining episodes of Season 1. And if she remains a main cast member, she should be included as such on this page. But it's too early too tell, really. (So far, she has appeared in eight out of ten episodes btw.) Der Hans 0:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ming-Na is only credited as a main character for certain episodes, which makes her hover somewhere between main and recurring. In the latest episode she was not among the main characters in the opening credits, which an actual main character would be even if they are not in the episode itself. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So, we remove her or leave, i say remove, atleast for now Vilnisr (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are a number of TV shows who do this when a regular character is absent from a certain episode: 24 (I think), Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, Caprica. For example, Sasha Roiz ("Sam Adama") of Caprica is only credited as a main cast member in those episodes he actually appears in. And there's no discussion on the Caprica page to have him removed from the main cast list. Gotta establish a consistent rule here. 24, Heroes, Caprica (BSG only partially), and SGU all have another thing in common: They don't use traditional opening titles anymore. SGU is just following the trend: Opening titles are abolished and main cast members are only credited in episodes they actually appear in. For all we know, Alaina Huffmann or Jamil Walker Smith wouldn't get a credit in episodes they don't appear in either. It's just so that this hasn't happen so far (correct me if I'm wrong on this one). So, keep Ming-Na. She's main cast. She just doesn't appear in every episode. Then again, this was never a recquirement for being considered a regular character. If she's removed now and then appears in the next three episodes of the show she'll be back again in this list anyway. And maybe then there would be another episode in which she doesn't appear and we would have this discussion all over again. - Der Hans 0:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why we need to remove her once and for all until she becomes as a real main character. For now she has been in 11 episodes but only credited as main in the opening credits for 6 episodes, 5 times specifically as guest and 3 times she wasn't in the opening credits at all. For the first season Patrick Gilmore (19), Peter Kelamis (18), Julia Benson (16), Jennifer Spence (15) all have more episodes to there name, Ming-Na, just over half (12). If you're only in half of the episodes and for half of the ones you are in you're credited specifically as guest you're definitely not main cast. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 10:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Are any other characters not credited for episodes in which they don't appear?

—WWoods (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

reference to Stargate Infinity

a scene of Stargate Infinity is seen on the PC Monitor of Eli Wallace. should that be noticed? --84.179.155.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC).

Wasn't that from Stargate Worlds? Rehevkor ✉ 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Which episode (and time) Vilnisr (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Should the links for SG-1 and Atlantis be under "related shows", or "preceded by"? - The Bushranger (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to have SG-1 under "preceded by" and SGA under "related shows". SCΛRECROW^CrossCom 03:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thanks. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadian/American Discussion

Mostly because I am tired of seeing this reverted back and forth, this needs to be discussed and the community needs to come to a consensus as per WP:EW.

The program is filmed and produced in Canada with many Canadian actors (Alaina Huffman,Elyse Levesque,Louis Ferreira) therefore The country of origin should be both Canada and United States. As for the Military portion of the intro, I believe we should drop any nationality of it, there is no need for it, as American military sci-fi is not listed as a genre anywhere I can find except for this article. As for the category listings Canada should be included since a major portion of the production does happen in Canada. IMDB lists it as being a Canadian/American show. Mcmatter (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. The whole Stargate TV franchise is half Canadian, that's how it survived the writer's strike unaffected. Also, we don't call Battlestar a 'military sci-fi', so I don't know why we would call this one either. To me it's a sci-fi, that just happens to [partly] involve the military. Tom walker (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, anyone can add information to an IMDb listing, so the fact that it may be listed as Canadian there is not a reliable source. In addition, plenty of US shows and movies have a slew of Canadian actors and production crew for the simple fact that it is cheaper to film US series in Canada, as I'm sure you're both aware. We don't list any of those shows as "Canadian". There is no Canadian TV network or production company involved in this show; Space (TV channel) just has the Canadian broadcast rights, they aren't involved with the show any further. A show like Howie Do It, which is co-commissioned by both NBC and Global, is a Canadian-American show. SGU is not. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 13:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, this has been discussed many times before with SG-1 and SGA, see the talkpage archives of WP:STARGATE and Stargate SG-1. Of course consensus can change, but so far most editors supported the "Canadian-American" description for various reasons. In my opinion, Canada should be named since (some) non-US/non-Canadian TV guides list Canada, e.g. [24]. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Camera / gear

Does anyone know what camera's and or lenses they used to achieve the really shallow DoF and film in the weird lighting conditions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.214.176.62 (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the Ancients/Ori

Did they reveal the home galaxy of the Ancients / Ori, in one of the SGU featurettes?

http://stargate.mgm.com/view/content/1666/index.html

The galaxy shown behind Jackson on the monitor when he speaks about the original home galaxy is image:M33.jpg the Triangulum Galaxy.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The galaxy shown might be the Triangulum Galaxy in reality but Stargate most likely used it as a stock image and it may not be the actual name of the galaxy in regards to Stargate mythology, unless you have a source which would be great. During season 9 and 10 of SG-1 we do see the Ori/Alteran home galaxy but as far as I remember they don't refer to it by name but rather simply as the "Ori home galaxy". --98.234.74.77 (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Show format

All three of the listed formats are the show are accurate. However Stargate Universe has deviated greatly from the original format of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis and now Serial Drama is the more accurate of the three. The show is more focused on the character interactions and less focused on the sci-fi aspects. --98.234.74.77 (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

Here's the second sentence of the "Critical reception" section: Being one of the few Stargate franchise releases that were well-received by major media publishers, Mike Hale from The New York Times was generally positive towards the pilot episodes, saying the Stargate franchise was "catching up" with the long-running Star Trek franchise.

Not to nit-pick too much, but I'm not sure what's going on grammatically here. The subject of the sentence is Mike Hale, but he's being modified by the clause "being one of the few Stargate franchise releases". That first clause just doesn't fit. I don't want to change the intent of the sentence, so I'm posting here first.

Maybe we could say something like [SGU] is one of the few Stargate franchise releases that were well-received by major media publishers. For example, Mike Hale from The New York Times was generally positive towards the pilot episodes, saying the Stargate franchise was "catching up" with the long-running Star Trek franchise. But even this revision doesn't flow from the previous sentence (Metacritic summarizes the response as "generally favorable reviews", but with several critics showing reservation.). -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition: is some newspaper from pittsburgh really the "main stream media"? no..not really.. 78.51.85.123 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A Pittsburgh newspaper could very well qualify as a mainstream publication. In any case, I've made the change I brought up many months ago. I tried to get around the lack of flow by adding a paragraph break after the one-sentence Metacritc introduction, thereby making the section three distinct thoughts: overview from Metacritic, then favorable reviews, then negative reviews. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Stargate Season 3

Is there any information about SGU having a third season in the works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.50.30 (talk • contribs)

Nothing new on GateWorld. As per gateworld (Nov 27), "The network is expected to announce its decision about SGU Season Three in December or January [...]". – sgeureka ^t•c 08:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It was canceled 68.4.167.63 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Reception update

I know it can be touchy here with updating the show (considering the alrge pool of sg fans and traffic here). But the reception is largely based on the pilot episode alone. Ratings have dipped this season and people have been apparently vocal over reasons why. Would anyone object if i began some additions to the reception section reflecting this season?;[25]. In paticular wether this article is reliable (and in this case) unobjectionable for inclusion. Im not opposed to other articles showing it in a more positive view either, and in fact please help with updating! Anything to show an up to date section as it will add to the deverse fan reception the show is receiving in the media. I welcome a broader range of thoughts on this before I would dare make a change. Thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

added a bit feel free others to add some more and update the article. Thx Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

critics usually only review pilots and premieres, so most articles on shows are like that. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

---

As of Monday May 09, some form of (presumably) troll has added the following:

"Metacritic summarizes the response as "generally favorable reviews" for SGU's first season, but with several critics showing reservation.[69] Upon lack of marketing funds, Metacritic proclaimed Stargate Universe the biggest piece of crap to ever grace the newly branded "SyFy" channel - and acknowledges it's prior review was paid-for, rejoicing over the end of Stargate Universe, perhaps the worst show ever made, along with fans of the original Stargate SG-1 and even Stargate Atlantis.[69]

Less than critical reception has called, amongst all rational parties, for the public execution of the writers and producers of Stargate Universe - and as a bare minimum, the castration of the producers on SyFy channel who allowed it to air.[69]"

While this is amusing to some degree, it's clearly bogus and someone should revert this vandalism asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.126.220 (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Does this page still need protection at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimboidnk (talk • contribs)

The page was plagued by persistent vandalism, it will auto expire on July 1, 2011. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Region 2 Release Dates

Unfortunately I'm not special enough to edit them myself, can someone please enter the S1 and S2 Region 2 release dates that are currently N/A on the main page:

Season 1: 5 July 2010 Season 2: 29 Aug 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimboidnk (talk • contribs)

If you're referring to the table, you can edit that at List of Stargate Universe episodes#Series overview and home releases, which isn' protected. Editing there will show up here as well. But I suggest you add the source of the information when you do. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Needs an article rewrite

Nearly the entire article seems to have bits of left over text from a long out of date version that was obviously writen before the show came out. I think the only way for it to be corrected though would be for someone to perform an entire rewrite updating everything to be current. I'm not one to be bold as I have poor grammar and generally stick to smaller edits than what this article requires. IRMacGuyver (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Listed as a 'Canadian - American' tv show, should 'American' be changed to U.S.A. Text mdnp (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • In modern contexts, "American" means "from the U.S.A.". See American (word). – sgeureka ^t•c 07:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Stargate Universe "IS" ==> Stargate Universe "was"

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the show and its a sad yet very simple editorial change... "Stargate Universe WAS a Canadian military sci-fi show." True, the show still exists as DVDs and possibly repeats as well... but it is no longer a "current" TV show. And just like all other forms of media, books, music, etc. that are no longer produced, you say that they "were" or it "was."68.6.76.31 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Is" is style. See e.g. The Rockford Files, The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series).--Oneiros (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because a show is no longer being produced does not mean we regulate to the past tense. It exists. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)