Enterprise trying to ape success of SG1?

oxygen_old

Does anyone else think Enterprise was just trying to ape the success of Stargate SG1? I mean, the similarities are fairly obvious. Get a main character, who had a successful sci-fi(ish) tv show in the 80's, with a bit of wit about them. A predominantly human cast, with one or two alien exceptions, bring the setting closer to our own time etc etc.

After ST:Voyager was flagging in viewership, people thought prime time sci-fi was fairly dead, and then after the unexpected popularity of SG1, I think Paramount tried to jump on the bandwagon, get another SG1 formula out there.

karlog

yes i agree

Myrddin

I don't. Its a mainly human cast because the federation hadnt been founded yet, the NX01 was an earth vessel.

Its closer to our time because its a prequel, something that had been planned and rumoured about for years.

Whats having a successful show in the 80's go to do with choosing a main character? I actually liked Archer, regardless of Quantum Leap or anything else he did.

Slice

Was SG1 successful?

chopperbyrne

Slice wrote: »

Was SG1 successful?

Hugely.

FutureGuy

oxygen wrote: »

Does anyone else think Enterprise was just trying to ape the success of Stargate SG1? I mean, the similarities are fairly obvious. Get a main character, who had a successful sci-fi(ish) tv show in the 80's, with a bit of wit about them. A predominantly human cast, with one or two alien exceptions, bring the setting closer to our own time etc etc.

After ST:Voyager was flagging in viewership, people thought prime time sci-fi was fairly dead, and then after the unexpected popularity of SG1, I think Paramount tried to jump on the bandwagon, get another SG1 formula out there.

Completely disagree. If you are going to do a prequel show to TOS, having more familiar technology and less alien crew members was a given.

In fact, I always felt that, as good as SG1 was, it took alot of great story ideas from Star Trek.

oxygen_old

EnterNow wrote: »

I don't. Its a mainly human cast because the federation hadnt been founded yet, the NX01 was an earth vessel.

Its closer to our time because its a prequel, something that had been planned and rumoured about for years.

Whats having a successful show in the 80's go to do with choosing a main character? I actually liked Archer, regardless of Quantum Leap or anything else he did.

FutureGuy wrote: »

Completely disagree. If you are going to do a prequel show to TOS, having more familiar technology and less alien crew members was a given.

In fact, I always felt that, as good as SG1 was, it took alot of great story ideas from Star Trek.

C’mon guys, I do understand what a prequel is, and why its close to our time. I also understand the predominantly human cast is because the federation isn’t as established yet.

What Im saying is the reason they chose to do a prequel, is because of the success of SG1. Writers do understand real world implications for their fiction, its not like they go into the room

Writer 1 : “Let’s get a successful 80’s actor as the lead”
Writer 2 : “Haven’t another sci-fi tv show done that? SB-1… ST-1, something like that. ”
Writer 1: “I don’t know, I don’t watch or read about any other tv shows. It’s all Star Trek baby.”

deman

Slice wrote: »

Was SG1 successful?

What planet are you living on?

deman

I think the points the OP made that the shows have some similar traits are justifiable but are also just coincidental. Apart from that they are completely different. Loved them both.

oxygen_old

deman wrote: »

I think the points the OP made that the shows have some similar traits are justifiable but are also just coincidental. Apart from that they are completely different. Loved them both.

You just missed my point a little bit there Deman. I'm not saying the similarities are coincidences, Im saying ST: Enterprise copied Stargate SG1. SG1 1997, Star Trek Enterprise 2001. Theres to much time there to allow for any coincidences.

Wasnt even Archers boss from the Quantum Leap in a couple of episodes, as an admiral,aka his boss. in the same way as MacGyver's boss was also the boss in SG1.

It was the first of the later series of Star Trek to be canceled after less than 5 seasons, and I think this lack of originality factored into that. It started to get its best when it got back to its star trek roots at the end of season 4.

Myrddin

oxygen wrote: »

Wasnt even Archers boss from the Quantum Leap in a couple of episodes, as an admiral,aka his boss. in the same way as MacGyver's boss was also the boss in SG1.

Nope. Afaik he was the warden of a Xindi prison encampment...

Are you seriously suggesting they chose Scot Bakula because SG1 had a past star? I really dont think so.

deman

oxygen wrote: »

Wasnt even Archers boss from the Quantum Leap in a couple of episodes, as an admiral,aka his boss. in the same way as MacGyver's boss was also the boss in SG1.

Are you saying that MacGyver's boss and O.Neil's boss are played by the same actor? They're both bald and fat but that's where the similarity ends. They're different actors. Look again.

Niska

short answer... No.

Predominatley all human with token alien?

TOS - All human except Spock.
TNG - All human except Worf and Data.

As for timing. SG-1 aired initially in 1997. Last episode of Voyager was 23/05/2001, while Broken Bow aired 26/09/2001.

Gulliver

Niska wrote: »

short answer... No.

Predominatley all human with token alien?

TOS - All human except Spock.
TNG - All human except Worf and Data. Deanna Troi - Half Betazoid.

As for timing. SG-1 aired initially in 1997. Last episode of Voyager was 23/05/2001, while Broken Bow aired 26/09/2001.

I'll get my coat...

dyl10

It's more plausible that Enterprise was released to stop SG1 becoming the biggest TV sci fi show if it's time(a similar enough situation as the movies Ants and A Bugs Life).

I don't believe there was mimicry but it is possible that after SG1s appeal, the ST producers may have decided they needed to move with the times.