[le-mark]

> the studio were concerned that Gero’s take on the series “would not have broad appeal beyond the franchise’s already dedicated fanbase.” This is a key component in reviving a legacy IP

It was popular because of who? The fans! No one needed the Disney-ization of Stargate. This is probably a good thing.

[iammiles]

The framing here gives some good insight into other controversial Amazon adaptations.

[rgblambda]

As bummed as I am by this news, I kinda understand the logic. The fan base likely didn't make up the majority of viewing figures when SG-1 and it's spin-offs were on the air. Otherwise, it would have been revived much sooner after their big bet on direct to DVD movies didn't pan out.

[jhogendorn]

As far as I understand it, the movies were actually very successful, but there was some kind of internal politicking or studio issue and they just didnt continue.

[rgblambda]

The co-creator of Stargate was interviewed about it and said:

>The only thing that is blocking the SG-1 movie or the Atlantis movie, the only thing, is the fact that the direct-to-DVD market has gone away

https://web.archive.org/web/20101001085140/https://tvdeathra...

Interestingly, he also talked about the need to appeal to an audience outside of the existing fan base, quite relevant to the current discussion:

>If you just try to hang on to the viewers you have and the numbers are going down, they’ll eventually go down to the point where the network and the studio will say, “OK, we’re done.” That’s what happens. That’s definitely what happens.

[cyanydeez]

I think they were wanting the Star Warization; no matter how stupid Star Wars gets, the fans kept showing up.