Dean Devlin Still Wants to Make 'Stargate' Sequels, from the "Give it up already" department Options

[Arcady]

According to an article at ComingSoon.net, Dean Devlin (producer and writer of the original Stargate feature film which starred Kurt Russell and James Spader), wants to finish the trilogy of films that he had originally planned. "I'd want the films to stay on track for what the original three were planned to be," said Devlin. "I'd want to let the series stand on their own." Read the entire article here.

[Invisible Painting]

MGM have told him no, they own the rights. Tough It's his problem it's not going to sell...

[Dafmeister]

There is some discussion in this thread but it has been locked so the discussion can continue here.

[Arcady]

Sorry, I didn't see that thread until after I posted this story.

Anyway, I think Devlin needs to get over it already. Making new sequels that contradict the television series would not only confuse viewers, but talk about screwed up continuity! If MGM allowed him to do this, it would probably hurt the entire franchise at this point.

[KillerMarv]

MGM shouldn't make two shows with the same name but with two different stories... OK, it was a hit, if he wants to finish his trilogy now, it's too late, he should name it differently: Starportal, Spacegate... whatever he seems fit. Stargate became very popular because of the series, and not the movie... Although there are gaps between the movie and the series, that doesn't mean they have to disregard everything we have seen for so long.

Is it possible that, if MGM refuses him, he will turn to another studio to make it? Maybe Universal or 20th Century?

[Arcady]

MGM owns Stargate. No other studio is allowed to make it.

[Invisible Painting]

Is it possible that, if MGM refuses him, he will turn to another studio to make it? Maybe Universal or 20th Century?

Fortunaltely, no. MGM own the rights to it. Meaning if they don't want to produce it no one else can. And I seriously hope they don't, the story continues in sg1. Why do they need to continue on the story again but differently?? Sg-1 was a bigger success then two sequels would be. It's already made more money then the films would in their time. Why continue it on differently. It would just alienate viewers for ages confusing them. Fans of the films will be confused about the series, fans of the series won't understand the films. I'd have no intention of seeing it, why would I go see it when sg-1 continued on. The films shouldn't be made, they would be a bad idea. And sg-1 film could be a good idea becuase it would continue on from the series and would make sence. Wouldn't alienate viewers.

And daf, they're thinking of making a second spin of?? Why??

[KillerMarv]

MGM owns Stargate. No other studio is allowed to make it.

Great... so in other words, he's toast if they don't accept... And my guess is that they won't accept, they're trying to make a movie themselves spining-off a third series. After 10 years of hard work, such a great show will surely not go to waste.

[Invisible Painting]

As said MGM have said no before, he's just hoping that with the sucess of his latest film that he'll be allowed to. I doubt that they will give him the rights. I remember hearing on this site and on an audio commentarry that the new head of MGM (at least I think it was the head) is a fan of the show. And if so I don't see him going for it. It should be safe.

EDIT:Quotes for those of you interested:

» Click for Spoiler «

But MGM has big plans. Executive vice president Charles Cohen (see related story) says MGM ?intends? to develop a theatrical movie ?derived from the series over the last 10 years? that would ideally ?dovetail? into a third Stargate television show.

Theatricals would ?not in any way impair? SG1's television run, he asserts. He believes it's possible for three Stargate series to air concurrently, not unlike the Law & Order franchise. ?If you look at SG-1 ? with bringing in Claudia [Black], Ben [Browder] and Beau [Bridges] ? we've retooled the series with it still being SG-1. I'd like to see SG-1 go another 10 years. I love the show. I'd like to keep it on forever and keep adding to it.?

?It's very ambitious,? Cohen admits, then chuckles. ?Brad and Rob will cringe.?


Stargate SG-1 is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.'s new best friend, if you gauge it by the enthusiasm expressed by studio executive vice president Charles Cohen.

Since MGM's sale to an investment group last year, the sci-fi franchise has become ?much more important to MGM than it had been viewed before the sale,? according to Cohen, who said wasn't actively involved with the show until the studio's new ownership came in.

?Stargate on the television side represents the same type of dynamic franchise [as the James Bond movies] for us,? Cohen says. ?It's enormously important both in terms of what it contributes financially but also what it does for our image.?

These days, MGM co-produces films with Sony, so it ends up owning only 50% (at most) of what's produced. ?We really aren't making a whole lot of new product that we own and finance 100%,? Cohen explains. ?But Stargate we own and finance 100%, and we're very supportive of it. We're putting more money into the shows. It's very important to us that this series not only continue but maintain or exceed the quality of what came before. For instance, we're putting Richard Dean Anderson back in the show. We felt it was great for the fan base. That required some money that we hadn't budgeted, but we were very happy to spend.?

Stargate SG-1 helps keep the MGM name ?in front of millions,? Cohen says. ?And it helps drive other MGM products. It opens a lot of doors. People want to meet with you. It's a quality product they need to have.?

From wiki.

This post has been edited by Invisible Painting: Jul 20th 2006, 8:08 PM

[KillerMarv]

As said MGM have said no before, he's just hoping that with the sucess of his latest film that he'll be allowed to. I doubt that they will give him the rights. I remember hearing on this site and on an audio commentarry that the new head of MGM (at least I think it was the head) is a fan of the show. And if so I don't see him going for it. It should be safe.

Perhaps this is why he's trying this again. Because MGM changed leadership. Regardless if he is a big fan of the show or not, he may be thinking in costs. Two movies instead of two shows will cost him much more money.

BTW, what is Devlin's latest success anyway?

[Invisible Painting]

Perhaps this is why he's trying this again. Because MGM changed leadership. Regardless if he is a big fan of the show or not, he may be thinking in costs. Two movies instead of two shows will cost him much more money.

BTW, what is Devlin's latest success anyway?

Umm some films about world war two pilots, I read it in the other thread I dunno exactly It hasn't actually been a sucess yet I don't think but it might And no I don't think it is of any result of the MGM boss change (if it is that) the new guy (from about a year ago or so) is a fan of and supports the show. So it wouldn't boad well for more films. I remember reading that he was happy to put a bit more money into the show to get RDA to come back for the appearences he does this season.

[Dafmeister]

And daf, they're thinking of making a second spin of?? Why??

At the moment, Stargate is money. Let's face it one of the shows is going to end soon (personally I think it will be Atlantis) so TPTB are going to be able to produce another show. I'd love to see Stargate: Horizons as a spin off but that is wishful thinking.

BTW, what is Devlin's latest success anyway?

I don't know about success but his latest movie was 'The Day After Tomorrow' wasn't it or was it Emmerich? Anyway, he hasn't had a decent movie since the 90's.

EDIT: To add to what Xay said in the other thread, there are about 5 novels that are considered the continuation of the Staragte movie. They are(from Wikipedia):
"The first three books form one complete storyline:

Stargate: Rebellion (1995)
Stargate: Retaliation (1996)
Stargate: Retribution (1997)
The last two continue after the events but move the story forwards by dealing with the Abydonians and the events which happen at the climax of the trilogy.

Stargate: Reconnaissance (1998)
Stargate: Resistance (1999)"

What is interesting is that they are not what Devlin wanted. The page at Wiki says that they were written from the notes made by Emmerich and Devlin didn't voice his own ideas until after the novels were published.

[Invisible Painting]

At the moment, Stargate is money. Let's face it one of the shows is going to end soon (personally I think it will be Atlantis) so TPTB are going to be able to produce another show. I'd love to see Stargate: Horizons as a spin off but that is wishful thinking.

I don't know...I mean I haven't exactly read much saying either show might end but both of them are doing pretty well last count. I don't think there is anything saying either will end soon is there? Last time I checked there wasn't, and I'd rather see these two shows go on for a while longer rather then one end and we get another new one. I like these two and don't see the point in ending one just yet just for another one to come in. Why not just stick with these two??

This post has been edited by Invisible Painting: Jul 20th 2006, 7:42 PM

[Dafmeister]

I'd like to see both shows continue but how long can Atlantis go on for? TPTB can only keep Atlantis weak for so long before it becomes unrealistic and once it becomes powerful, the show is over.
IMHO, at the moment, SG-1 has the storyline that has the best chance at longevity.

[jetsetter]

I'd like to see both shows continue but how long can Atlantis go on for? TPTB can only keep Atlantis weak for so long before it becomes unrealistic and once it becomes powerful, the show is over.
IMHO, at the moment, SG-1 has the storyline that has the best chance at longevity.

Don't worry, they will think of something. Most likely some new and powerful enemy.

[IndyJan]

What is interesting is that they are not what Devlin wanted. The page at Wiki says that they were written from the notes made by Emmerich and Devlin didn't voice his own ideas until after the novels were published.

This is why I doubt that he had anything planned. Like I said in the other thread, Devlin is a johnnycomelately. He wants to cash in. If MGM knows what they are doing, they will not agree to do anything with him. SG1 is a great show and has been for 9 years and some months. It is making money for MGM. I kind of like the idea of a movie for MGM and the tv series, with the potential to have a spinoff.

Daf, I kind of agree with you. If one of the series leaves, I think it will be Atlantis before SG1. SG1 has major history and continuity. It was the dynamics of the main 4 characters, Jack, Sam, Daniel and Teal'c. That happened right away, IMO. Atlantis after two seasons is struggling to find themselves. They have characters that have not been developed (Teyla) and probably never will. Atlantis would be interesting if they actually went off world exploring and trying to find out about the ancients, or actually stayed on Atlantis and explored the city, and what they have in the computer data base.

[Rogue Ashrak]

Actually, the trilogy was part of the original plan. But Dean and Devlin sold the rights to MGM for some reason. When they found out MGM was planning a TV series instead of more movies (which pissed them off big time), they turned what they had into another popular film of theirs. Independence Day was supposed to be Stargate II (or whatever the next title would have been), but they had to backtrack and make it an entirely different movie. They've admitted in the press that they "borrowed" stuff from Stargate to make ID4, and even in the movie, there's a billboard advertising Stargate. That was their way of paying homage. Basically, ID4 was what happened after Ra's race decided to exact revenge against Earth. There just weren't any stargates.

Interesting, I had no idea about that! What's funny is the new light this puts on Daniel's comment in Politics when he's arguing about the Goa'uld threat with Kinsey:

Daniel: " Senator, we have reason to believe that the Goa'uld are about to launch an attack, through force, in ships."
Kinsey: "Then I think they will regret, taking on the United States Military."
Jack: "Oh for Gods sake."
Daniel: Oh, oh you're right, well just upload a computer virus in to the mother ship.

He's mocking the idea that would have possibly been used to save Earth in Devlin's alternate version of Stargate. Was this line a subtle jab at Devlin by the producers of SG-1?

This post has been edited by Rogue Ashrak: Jul 21st 2006, 5:02 AM

[Kromando33]

Damn I hope MGM doesn't sell him the rights to make more movies, that would totally wreck the series continuity, he claims he wants to let the two stand on their own but by now I would say that the movie and series are impossible to separate. For one the pilot itself and many, many episodes followed the movies original plot threads and ideas, the series was made to directly be a sequel to the movie, therefore more movies that ignore the series mythos would only serve to confuse audiences and mess up the Stargate franchise as a whole. I assume Devlin knows all this though, so the only conclusion I can come to therefore is that he is cashing in on the success of the series and has no regard for the established mythos, that man is disgraceful, if he has any regard for the franchise he started then he would let it go, although I agree that MGM will never give it up though, too successful. Sorry if I was ranting...

[KillerMarv]

I don't know about success but his latest movie was 'The Day After Tomorrow' wasn't it or was it Emmerich? Anyway, he hasn't had a decent movie since the 90's.

You're kidding, The Day After Tomorrow could be the work of Devlin?

He should make that into a sequel instead of Stargate: The Day After Tomorrow 2: After Lunch Time, and of course The Day After Tomorrow 3: In The Evening...

This post has been edited by KillerMarv: Jul 21st 2006, 5:52 AM

[Invisible Painting]

You're kidding, The Day After Tomorrow could be the work of Devlin?

He should make that into a sequel instead of Stargate: The Day After Tomorrow 2: After Lunch Time, and of course The Day After Tomorrow 3: In The Evening...

Day after tomorrow was emmerich, I don't know if Devlin was involved but it was definately Emmerich.

Interesting about ID4 though, didn't know that. I knew they were made by the same people but I didn't know it was supposed to be a sequel. That's interesting. Could have made quite an interesting sequel though. If the series wasn't better that is But MGM are not likely to go for it, they know what we're writing and they know they can't do that. It would wreck everything and would wreck the franchise. Just give him wormhole Xtreme and make him happy.

[mithwriter]

If the man can get MGM to green-light two more Stargate movies with Russell and Spader both on board, I will be in line the first day to go see these films.

Why?

I loved the Jack-Daniel interaction in the films and the scope of the films in general.

I love the proposed storylines - provided they are properly executed (action, plot, character elements)

No Teal'c? Hey, I can turn on the tv and see him.

No Carter or Vala?

Whatever.

Continuity shmontinuity. Who cares? It's just a story folks. Confusing and alienating fans? Oh pul-lease. I remember when the Final Fantasy movie came out (very entertaining film, by the way) and there was this thing about "oh, but its not like the game, its going to alienate the video game players becuase its not the game and confuse the general film going public." Sure it didn't make much money, but it was still a good film.

To be honest, I would rather watch a great Stargate movie in the theatre than the recent run of medicore episodes...okay some good ones, but you know what I mean.

[Matman]

Finishing the Trilogy is a horrible idea like everyine said already well I dont feel like repeating it, it's just a bad idea not to mention the first movie took place 12 years ago. It's not like they can just ignore that little detail, What Daniel has been living on Abydos for 12 years and for some reason after all that time Jack Oneil and whoever decides to go back or whatever? I personally don't like when people try to revive movie sequels and what-not, I mean they are trying to make an "Indiana Jones 4" around twenty years from the last one, and a "Die Hard 4", it wont end there either. They will keep making pointless sequels just for the hopeless sake of making more money while destroying good series. I mean the Indy and Die Hard movies are already trilogys so why the hell ruin them, thats what they'll do to Stargate by trying to make these movies.

[Major Gordon Sumner]

It's not totally false mithwriter, but at the same time the real disturbing thing would be to invest money into the "probably" only Stargate movies without Richard Dean Anderson nor all the characters that we would like to see on cinema.

I remember the episode Lost City which was supposed to be a film and when I see how talentuous they can be when it's about a movie then I would like to see that in theaters.

This post has been edited by Major Gordon Sumner: Jul 21st 2006, 10:04 AM

[stargate_horizon]

Hello...long time reader, first time posting.
I have been a fan of STARGATE since the it came out in theaters in 94, and the series too. I do remember the whole controversey of the Stargate II & III being made. In fact the story lines for II & III are out there somewhere...I think I may have an old article from a magazine that mentions the outlines for the sequels somewhere ( I have do some digging).

Though my opinions on this are mixed.

I am excited about additional theatrical versions of the Stargate series, but this whole senario can go two ways...really good or really bad.

MGM is going to make their sequels regardless, it is all about the money for them as well as the marketability of the Stargate name. Especially with the huge success of the SG series, the execs are going to look for any avenue to milk SG for all they can. I do not blame for Devlin wanting to complete his SG triliogy, however, his underlying motivation needs to be questioned from many angles.

Is he "really" wanting to compelte a triliogy that was never completed, like George Lucas wanted to finish his Star Wars saga? Probably, more than likely...more or less a very small percentage.

IS there some type of plot to exploit the SG name and franchise to get what he wants and make a little $$$ on the side and get his name back on the high rollers list? Probably, more than likely...more or less a bigger percentage.

Keep in mind Devlin and Emmrich sold the rights to MGM and they own it and control it...Devlin has really no say in it at all. So if MGM knows that Devlin has SG II & III scripts/story lines ready from MGM 94 success, then MGM will allow Devlin to accomplish his sequels. It would be dumb for MGM to create another whole theatrical SG movies outside of the original SG and its story line.
If MGM is smart (and we know they are)...this is a marketers dream...the gold at the end of the rainbow ordeal.

The BAD: with original cast members James Spader and Kur Russell reprising their roles in the sequels would be great for them and the fans. BUT eventhough the story line will pick up where the original 94 SG leftoff (12 yrs later), this WILL in fact step on the SG1 toes, especially the actors and writers IMO.

Now if and when MGM starts promoting SG II and production starts, we will see MGM gain profits from SG1 & SG:At from their DVD sales, SciFi channel will profit from this as well because as MGM begins promoting and marketing SG II and the movie leaks begin and hype starts - everyone will be flocking to their tvs to watch SG1 & SGAt...so in turn ratings will sky rocket for SciFi.

Though, if anything the writers and actors for SG:At will not care what happens and goes on with SGII because they are a spin off...no toe stepping here. Though, IMO, this will with the cast of SG1.
For example:
They have been the faces of SG for 10 years now, Michael Shanks has lived and breathed Dr. Daniel Jackson for so long that he has made the character his own...stemming away from James Spaders version.
If you look at SG1 seasons 1 & 2, Shanks' Jackson is very similar to Spaders' orignial Jackson...this is obviously continuity and familiarity of the character. Though Shanks has worked very hard to branch Jackson's character away from Spaders' and allow him to grow, mature and diverse.

If Spader reprises his role...he will be reprising his original version of Daniel Jackson... this would and could confuse fans.

With RDA not on the show anymore...I do not see any conflicts with Jack O'Neill character. This could cause tension on the SG1 set with Shanks' Jackson and the others not being incorported into the movie. Plus, if I was the cast of SG1, and MGM was considering of revamping the movie series I would be questioning why the SG1 cast is not getting movie deals (ala ST: TNG circumstances).

As much as I am excited about SG II & III and the SG1 & SG: At series...in my opinion when MGM starts the movie sequels...you will see Sg1 sign off for good. There may be another spin off series with Atlantis...more than likely, SG1 will leave.

That is my opinion though... sorry so long