Stargate

Long ago, back in 1994, there was a little film starring Kurt Russell an James Spader called Stargate. It sparked a lot of people's imaginations, and even did pretty well for itself. So of course people started wondering about a big-screen sequel. But instead of a big-screen continuation, we got Stargate: SG-1 in 1997 on Showtime. The series picked up events about a year after the film, but did so without the involvement of the film's writers Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich.

To say it turned into a successful franchise would be an understatement. SG-1 lasted ten years, Stargate: Atlantis notched another five, and Stargate Universe just premiered to huge ratings for Syfy. Add to that the various telefilms that have been filmed, including a forthcoming continuation of the Atlantis saga, and you've got yourself one of the most successful sci-fi franchises of all time.

So it's interesting now that both Devlin and Emmerich are talking about a sequel to the now 15-year old Stargate movie that started it all. The idea would be for there to be two sequels, creating a big-screen Stargate trilogy. Apparently, according to Devlin, that was always the plan. They're saying that both films would take place in that year between the end of the film and the start of the series, so they wouldn't tread on any of the continuity established.

Instead, they'd expand on the mythology established in the movie itself. If that was the plan, I think I could get on board with it, though they'd obviously have to recast the leads. I don't think anyone would believe that James Spader and Kurt Russell look like they're within a year of their ages in that movie. Hell, even their TV replacements couldn't pull off that trick.

What do you think? Should Devlin an Emmerich let the expanding television series and spin-offs tell their story, or would you support them going back to the source material to expand their original saga in this way?