Syfy Renews Stargate Universe For a 2nd Season

Published 5 years ago by , Updated February 10th, 2012 at 9:20 am,

stargate universe Syfy Renews Stargate Universe For a 2nd Season

Knowing how everyone is in love with Stargate Universe, I thought I’d share the news that Syfy has given the green light for a 2nd season of  SGU.  It’s a 20 episode order…  Please, stay calm folks.

Right now SGU is in a very long mid-season break.  It won’t return until April, so you have time to recover from the shell-shock you’ve been put through so far!

Screen Rant readers are not alone in their emotional angst about the show – that fact has been evidenced in previous SGU articles we’ve posted.  SGU is a controversial issue with fans that have come along for a 15-year ride of Stargate and it has been noted that many aren’t too happy with this dramatic change of pace.  (Would that be an understatement?)

Despite the core audience being tossed around by this new approach, it doesn’t sound like the showrunners are looking to change it any time soon.  At least if you go by this quote:

“We’re dealing with 15 seasons of expectations with a certain fanbase,” executive producer Robert Cooper said. “Hopefully, as the show goes on, people will appreciate ‘Universe’ for being its own thing.”

In case you can’t wait for any insights, they said that now that we know things about the characters, the show will become more serialized and we’ll see more situations on the ship as opposed to the attempted dramatic injections of Earth-based drama.

We’re also going to finally get to see a full-bodied alien!  See, now we’re talking!  But of course they say the aliens are going to be along the lines of a District 9-like alien.

Why do they have to keep saying things like that?  They’ve compared their show against other shows and now they’re comparing their aliens to popular movie aliens.  Why oh why do they have to keep drawing comparisons to other successful shows instead of actually trying to be their own personality?  Grr.

Aside from that, what is going to be interesting is that in the 2nd part of this 1st season, which they’re now taping, the crew is going to become decisively divided about what Young (Justin Louis) did to Rush (Robert Carlyle).

Hehe…  that was one of the best things to happen to that man.  You’d think he’d learn.  He’s been beat down by Greer, and now Young.  Who’s next?

Dare I ask how Screen Rant readers are feeling about another exciting, 20-episode season of Stargate Universe?  (I’ve ducked and covered…  let ‘er rip!)

Source:  THR

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. @Preppy

    Ouch man… you used my own self-deprecation against me! :-)

    Although, I think there is a flaw in your answer. If I am just dumb for liking it, as you say, then it would stand to reason that the others are probably all true as well, as a dumb person would not know what good storytelling or good character development are, etc… So the answer actually has to be “E. All of the above”

    You also said: “…sprinkle in there are not enough sci-fi shows out there to switch to as an alternative”

    I believe that falls under “D. yada yada yada” :-)

  2. @ Bruce

    I could answer your question in detail, but others have beaten me to the chase. The most concise answer coming from Ken J.


    This year’s Star Trek movie used “shaky-cam” well. Whenever the ship was attacked, the camera shook, as well as during the sky dive sequence. This made sense because during an attack the ship would be shaking and during the sky dive sequence any viewing would be unstable, so the camera shook to reflect that.

    The camera-work in Star Trek was great. I loved the angles and the flashes that they added to make the movie distinct.

    Also, in Saving Private Ryan, the shaking camera happened during the, again, attack sequences or when things would be unsteady for the average person. The camera wasn’t shaking just to be shaking, or to be “edgy”, and that’s why it worked.

    This brings me to another point I’d like to make:

    Not to be rude here, but these Stargate people are not JJ Abrams or Steven Spielberg. And, they don’t have to be. They made a name for themselves doing what they did. They were pretty good at that.

    I understand wanting to expand one’s horizons or testing boundaries. But, I think it’s better done in inches and/or feet rather than trying to jump a mile in one leap. If you ask me, this is a jump where they came up short.

  3. @Morena

    Didn’t see Star Trek yet – personal family matters have kept me out of the theaters all year now – so I can’t argue that point, but my friends who have seen it (and know me) feel I will love it.

    And I totally understand that in Saving Private Ryan the camera shook during the action sequences, that’s why I pointed out the opening 25 minutes as being EPIC, and that’s why I feel it worked well in being used in that way. I think you missed that part in my previous post, but it looks like we are on the same page when it comes to the camera work in Saving Private Ryan…

    As for it being used in BSG & SGU, I’m talking about the constant swaying, bobbing and shaking that the camera does even during the most mundane of scenes, like with 2 people talking in the hallway. I just feel its a distraction, taking focus away from the story and what the characters are saying at that moment. In BSG, it was hit and miss; I thought it worked well with the scenes of the ships moving through space, as well as when they had action sequences, but anytime they were focusing on a conversation the camera just moved around too much. Its the same thing in SGU – I don’t know if they do this b/c they feel it makes the scene more interesting and edgy, but it just makes me feel (at least from the point of view that I’m subjected to watch it from) that I’m still half in the bag and can’t stay focused on what is going on in front of me.

    Do I expect the writers of SGU to be just like Spielberg? Not at all (and I don’t ever recall stating that as well…), I’m just stating my opinion of the whole “floating/shaking” camera style being used. I like it when it’s used for the action sequences, giving the effect of you being in the middle of it all. All this lurching around hallways makes me feel like I’m a stalker…

    There’s an idea, since they have these Kinos floating all over – if they want to use all this bobbing and shaking filming styles, they should do it from the point of view of the Kinos (which I should add that they have done to some degree already), and stop with using it everywhere else – but again, that’s just my opinion…

    - Bradyhawke

  4. Yo, et. al.:

    Thanks for the feedback to my earlier question. Awesome perspectives to ponder.

    The Bruce

  5. @Bradyhawke

    I think you misunderstood my post. I was agreeing with you. I wasn’t trying to “explain” anything to you. I was merely further illustrating your points, which subsequently is what you ended up doing with my points as well. We are both on the same page here. Or, I believe we are.

    I know you didn’t say that you thought the Stargate people are like Steven Spielberg, that is why I drew a line to show that I was no longer just speaking to you, but making a point in general to anyone reading. It is my personal opinion that they are nowhere near being on the same level when it comes to film-making that Steven is at, or even JJ. That’s just me though…

    That said, Star Trek is out on DVD now. You can download it on iTunes. It’s a great movie. I hope you enjoy it if you chose to see it. I think you will.

  6. @Bruce

    Bruce stated
    I have to ask, and this is for clarification sake ’cause I’m trying to get where you come from:
    When you refer to the show as a “soap”, am I misinterpreting that all you want is mind-numbing, ship destroying action all the time?”

    The answer is Yes and No.

    Yes, you are misinterpreting the concept of “soap.” and viewer desires. I read some of the response. I think Ken J’s point is accurate and right on target.

    However, my long winded take is that there is a wide range of definitions for “soap” or “soap opera.” The definitions range from the positive and non-offensive to negative, derisive, intentionally offensive, and derogatory.

    For the people who watch soaps, for the people who produce soaps, or for the people who are really theoretical in their thinking, the previously mentioned people may think of soap operas as just TV shows that deal with various life matters.

    I think most of the references claiming that SGU is a “soap” are meant to be negative, derisive, intentionally offensive, and derogatory. More specifically, the various negative terms such as “soap” are meant to be a quick and all encompassing NEGATIVE description about how SGU is written, the way SGU is presented, the direction of SGU, the type of people who normally watch “soaps” or “soap operas,” and the type of people who may be attracted to watching soaps and SGU.

    Now I will very brutally honest about the negative view, which is also my view.

    Whether it is fair or not, people who don’t watch or who don’t like “soaps” view “soaps” as falling into two categories:
    [1] as a form of entertainment for the stupid, low IQ, and couch potatoes [and all of its other slang derivations that you can't say in public]; and
    [2] as the equivalent of female oriented porn. Most men like watching hard core porn. Most women don’t like hardcore porn, but love trashy romance novels and soaps.

    In addition to the two points above, most sci-fi people don’t like soaps and refuse to watch soaps because the soaps emphasis is always predictable: sexual dramas, personal relationships, emotional conflicts set in some interior [house /hospital /office / town] with only occasional trips outside the into new locations.

    Since the characters of soaps rarely go out of some interior [house /hospital /office / town]:
    ~ the characters range from abnormally good looking to unrealistically attractive
    ~ everyone is related or had a relationship to one another in some convoluted manner;
    ~ everyone is having sex with everyone else, even if they are related (and don’t know it);
    ~ baby mama drama [someone is always having someone else child];
    ~ someone has a re-emergence of alcoholism, drug addiction, infidelity;
    ~ someone just came back from the dead in a totally unbelievable and unreal manner;
    ~ monotonous drama with acting that has bad lines and that is extreme and over-the-top;

    Was I just describing SGU, “All My Children,” “Desperate House Wives,” “Ugly Betty,” or “MTV’s Real World?”

  7. Preppy. Todd-m. Whatever your name is. I’m not dead certain I could agree more, when it comes to personal points of view towards the series and your point about many of the people who watch science fiction. Though I would hold back on that specifically in regards to many of the people that came to sci fi through the anime side of things. They tend to be drawn to more dramatic things, from personal experience alone.