Talk:Stargate: Continuum

RDA in Continuum - but how much?

May I state that RDA plays a very important role, being the original leader of the team and that Carter, Teal'c and Jackson should appear right behind him. Then in should be followed by Mitchell and Vala. But in all reality I don't even see why it matters, as long as all of the information on the page is correct. Another suggestion; why not make a poll to see who the SG-1 fans think should be listed first. They have the right to decide. And that is my theory on the debate. Truthfully though, as long as its a good movie that represents SG-1 (the whole team and all of its past members) well I'm very happy, and won't even care what charactors listed first.-Random Contributor One of the last edits put RDA as the first person in the starring list. However, no articles so far indicate that he'll even play a significant/major role. RDA said about two weeks ago [1] that even he doesn't know, so I put his name back somewhere at the end of the list. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! Also, I've deleted some Original research and speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgeureka (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

We already know Anderson is in the movie, Anderson comes prior to Browder, I also do not see anything stating the starring section is a "ranking of importance". Matthew

My point was more that we don't know (for sure) whether he was starring at all. For all we know, he could just appear in the first 30 minutes in the setting up of the story, similary to Template:Sgcite. Until the producers say more about his involvement, he should not be listed as the first person starring. Just my opinion. (Sorry, forgot to sign the last time.) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one thing I hate when people start to try putting actors/actresses in definitions, RDA is in it thus he stars in it, there's no need to split it up in to a multitude of rankings and then put them in an order of importance, if anything it violates WP:NPOV, not to mention it then violates WP:ATT. Matthew

Sorry, non-native speaker here. I thought "starring" refers to "being the star of [a movie/TV show]". wikt:starring seems to back up this interpretation of the word. Again, my point was/is, we don't know at the moment whether RDA will have a lead role at all. (Although it's likely. But likelyhood status, as you said, still violates WP:NPOV and WP:ATT) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the last revert put the original research about Don S. Davis and Teryl Rothery back in. If everyone is fine with that, I'm going to leave it in. But I think it should be deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The starring section is not a "ranking of importance". Credits in movies and television series are not based on that, they're based on contracts. Until we know more about both RDA's role and how he'll be credited in the movie, we should not put him first. I've reordered this list based on the credits for The Shroud, using the normal SG-1 credits first, followed by the guest star credits, substituting Cliff Simon for Morena Baccarin. In those credits, RDA is the last to appear (credited with a Special Apperance). — BrotherFlounder 15:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if he "appears last" in the credits of "The Shroud"? Matthew

Because that's likely how he'd be credited in the movie, with an "Also Starring" credit. See Bill Shatner's credit in Star Trek: Generations as the first example that comes to mind. Also, why is there no need to tablulate the cast list? — BrotherFlounder 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Since O'Neill is no longer an official member of SG-1 (i.e. as of S9, S10 and The Ark of Truth), he should be treated like any other guest star on SG-1, at the end after all SG-1 main characters. Therefore, to list him in the same way as on "The Shroud" seems reasonable. Also, I'd like to suggest to go back to the Cast style we last had in [2]. (It looked less confusing and more orderly.) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: using the alphabetic order like it was suggested in the March 18 edit. That would also mean Bridges should be listed before Browder, Judge, Tapping, and Shanks, too. For the time being, that would give a worse impression of the (unknown) contract/involvement status than what we had before. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're not going to go with the tabular format, then the cast list should be like that, according to WikiProject Films' style guide. — BrotherFlounder 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there even is a guide line, I was bold and changed it back. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ranks in cast list?

I'm not certain about the idea of putting ranks in the cast list, since we're not sure what the ranks will really be. For example, since it seems the plot will be the SG1 team being sent to an alternate timeline, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the only time we see O'Neill is within that alternate timeline when the team goes to hunt him down as somebody they trust to help them. So for all we know, he's a fishing boat captain again and not a General at all. Of course, this is all unsourced speculation but then strictly speaking, so is including him as a General... so should we just remove ranks entirely? --Maelwys 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about leaving out the ranks for the time being, but I wouldn't really care about leaving them in either until we know more. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave the ranks in. It's only Gen. O'Neill and Gen. Landry who would be affected by this (we know Carter and Mitchell will appear before entering the alternate timeline), and Landry will likely appear before the alterations occur. — BrotherFlounder 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Don't forget Sam Carter! I think the names should be listed in the order of people who have been on the show longest, that means Carter, Teal'c, and Jackson all go first, followed by O'Neill, Mitchell, and Vala. Or it should be by rank. Either way works for me.-Random Contributor

While at it, why not remove the name as well ? Maybe his name is also different in an alternative timeline.

The rank is a part of character's name - a part that changes more frequently than the others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.66.2 (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC).