'Stargate SG-1', and What Sci-fi Shows Can Learn from It

Let us give a moment of silence for Stargate SG-1, if we will. The television spinoff of the 1994 Kurt Russell/James Spader science fiction film Stargate, which revolves around the titular device that transports people across galaxies, Stargate SG-1 was a rather unlikely show to begin with. The film was a modest critical success, but was largely decried by critics of the time as thin on plot and heavy on special effects. Which it was, to be honest. Stargate created an epic mythology and hinted at a rich, detailed world and history, but such a tapestry could not be woven in a two-hour film.

And it was here that Stargate SG-1 stepped in, trashing a remarkably large amount of Stargate, ripping the film to its studs and then moving on from there. Main character's names were changed, as did the actors who played them (Kurt Russell was replaced with Richard Dean Anderson of MacGyver fame, while Spader was replaced with the eerily-similar-looking Michael Shanks, for instance.) Hell, even their personalities changed, with the no-nonsense Jack O'Neil (Russell) turning into a dryly humorless Jack O'Neill (two 'l's, played by Anderson). The Stargate went from being a two-way device that only led to a single planet in another galaxy to a inter-galactic travel method linking to thousands of worlds (Abydos, the planet visited in the first film, suddenly moved to our galaxy in the switch as well.) The evil parasitic humanoid alien called Ra, who impersonated the Egyptian sun god and was believed the last of his kind, turned out to be one of many snake-like "Gou'ald" plaguing the galaxy.

Yet the core mythology of the film was successfully adapted and expanded on the television series, which lasted over 200 episodes and 10 seasons, making it the longest-running science fiction series on television. At its height, around the eighth season, Stargate had essentially eclipsed Star Trek and its flailing television series (for more info, see "A History of Star Trek and Star Wars".)

But for all its success (sparking two spin-off series, Stargate Atlantis and Stargate Universe, two direct-to-DVD movies with another on the way) SG-1 never received the critical acclaim of Star Trek or its later Sci-Fi Channel brother, the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. Sure, it cultivated a devoted following of rabid fans that was perhaps a bit larger than the usual show, but such a following seemed to relegate it to cult status. As Sharon Eberson of the Post-Gazette noted on the show's cancellation:

"Stargate SG-1's place in the sci-fi universe can be measured in longevity, spot-on cast chemistry, rabid fans who call themselves Gaters and the tough subjects it has tackled, although it has rarely been a critical darling. The other side of the Stargate has introduced powerful beings posing as gods, wielding power to enslave whole worlds. Anderson's wise-cracking Col. O'Neill kept the mood light despite the ongoing themes of slavery and the meaning of faith; by comparison, the acclaimed Battlestar Galactica is most often the very essence of dark drama" (1).

One has to wonder what would have happened if SG-1 had started out on broadcast networks, rather than on the cable Showtime, and later the Sci-Fi (now SyFy) Channel. Perhaps there it would have earned more praise, since even if early critics' dismissal of the show as "derivative" with stereotyped characters was correct, the series only got better over the years (2). And yet it remains overshadowed.

But that doesn't mean the series hasn't had an impact beyond employing a good chunk of Canadian media types. As Star Trek heads to a promising new film series and a possible television spinoff once again, as Battlestar Galactica has finished its first run, as Stargate Atlantis has been cancelled and a new, "darker and edgier" Universe takes its place, it's a good idea to take to heart some of the innovations or great elements of an under-appreciated series, and see how they can improve its fellow sci-fi shows.

*Technobabble done well--In my own sci-fi show watching and according to the Stargate fans at Gateworld.net, SG-1 and to a greater degree Atlantis had the most technobabble of any sci-fi series save Star Trek (3). Technobabble is defined quite helpfully by Wikipedia as "a form of prose using jargon, buzzwords and highly esoteric language to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation" (4). Yeah, maybe whoever wrote that was trying to be ironic in using such a dense and unhelpful definition. Basically, technobabble is throwing out technical terms in order to reinforce the often shaky premises of any sci-fi show, good or bad (time travel, body swapping, et al.) Many shows use them to some degree, but what makes SG-1 stand out from the rest of the sci-fi pack was the intelligence with which technobabble was used. The intrepid scientist Samantha Carter explains how the Stargate works using words like "wormhole", "superconducting rings", "event horizon", and such... but also explains it in layman terms so that it's understandable. Not to mention the show's presentation of concepts such as wormholes and alternate dimensions is actually keeping with current knowledge and informed speculation on the subject. This is in comparison to Star Trek, where the writers never seemed to understand that deuterium was plentiful when they fretted about running out of it (for that and other grievances, see "Why Star Trek Voyager Failed"), or where the show would apparently forget its own science and technology from episode to episode. An episode of SG-1, "200", pointedly spoofed this element when a television writer notes that the viewers won't care about the blatant errors in the film, but that they "love weapons at maximum". A character replies that viewers are smarter than they believe and respond positively to quality entertainment, which is in many cases true. But relying on weak technobabble to drive shows, the faulty premise eventually collapses and the episodes are a disaster.

*Good plot dumps--Plot dumps are essentially long, wordy periods of any story where a character or narrator gives long rounds of exposition in order to get readers/viewers/et al up to speed. As you might expect, in worlds where people can travel across the galaxy in seconds or use energy shields, large amounts of plot dumps are often required to relate tremendous levels of backstory about alien races or ancient history or the like. But if not handled correctly (or relied on too much), plot dumps come off as condescending or overly complex to the viewer, and at the very least slow down the story. Luckily, for most of SG-1 the four-person exploratory team was full of built-in plot dumps that worked with the characters themselves, so they didn't seem like plot conceits. The alien Teal'c is a tough warrior type who can explain the workings of the Goa'uld to his relatively clueless human teammates (and of course, why would they know that much about this race early on?) The researcher Daniel Jackson knows a lot about ancient mythology and civilizations, meaning he fills in the rest of the team when they find some artifact or ancient people. The scientist Carter explains all the various functions of strange technologies or devices. And the leader of the team, O'Neill, really is clueless about all of the above. The reason that he doesn't come off as a moron is because O'Neill acknowledges he's a soldier, not a thinker, and because he's such a capable leader who kicks ass and takes names when bullets and energy blasts fly that he's still plausible (and viewers can both empathize and admire him.) Few shows function so well.

*Resolve them plot threads!--Finally, SG-1 was smart about keeping the story going. Many shows often drop plot threads, leaving fans hanging, or else have a sporadic story arc. SG-1 managed to return to standalone stories in a regular-paced fashion, as well as hinting at future story developments before they actually happened. In real life, everything isn't planned out, but the apparent serious thinking into planning the story arcs of the series had the benefit of making it feel more real to viewers.

SG-1 had its faults, as does any show, even if its a good one. But if future sci-fi shows, including Universe, are to succeed, they'd be wise to look at what came before. Maybe in a decade, SG-1 will be seen as much an impact on the genre as Star Trek and Star Wars were.