Talk: Stargate canon

I think we need to decide on ONE canon, that is the ruling part for this wiki. I believe that the Movie and the series are canon according to "official" sources, but that the Infinity/RPG/books are not. We should also change this article accordingly. Peter R 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The article already specifies that the SG1/Atlantis canon is "the universe that this wiki is dedicated to." Furthermore, I think the original film should be considered to be "semi-canon" according to the series canon because of all the contradictions. Besides, if Dean Devlin is sucessful in getting the other movies of his and Roland Emmerich's original trilogy made (see Gateworld article here) they would have to be set in their own universe apart from the series. 67.171.163.212 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I rearrenged the article and hope that the new structure is somewhat easier to understand. I didn't change any (I hope) of the article's meaning. Peter R 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the movie is necessarily in a different canon category; it's just that, as with all ongoing fiction series, more recent stuff naturally overrides older stuff where there's a conflict. --Andrew Nagy 06:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I invite you to read this page for more information about canon. Thank you. Mister Oragahn 00:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Time travel" section

Objection to this edit: I specifically said "major timelines" so I wouldn't have to talk about the ones in 2010, Unending, The Last Man, or the flashbacks in Before I Sleep. I don't think anyone's going to confuse those timelines with any of the primary ones, so they're not really like separate continuities, at least in my mind.

You could also exclude them on the grounds that less than a whole episode takes place in each; but I guess it might be clearer to replace "major timelines in which episodes take place" to "timelines in which major portions of the series take place", or something along those lines. Any thoughts before I do that? --Andrew Nagy 13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, one thing I didn't notice at first: The edit implies that the episodes before "2010" and the episodes after are in different timelines, instead of being in the same timeline with only 2010 itself being separate. Anyway, fixed. --Andrew Nagy 03:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Movie/SG1|Atlantis Canon table

"Movie - Two Guards attempted to ... SG1|A - If a Stargate is buried, it will not be able to activate. Even if some sort of barrier is far enough from the event horizon, the matter heading through will not be able to reintegrate, essentially "splattering" against the barrier. " For the SG1|A canon, look at the episode "100 days" where the MALP falls back into the event horizon. A proper correction of "If the gate is buried entirely (that is, if the gate has an obstruction in it) then the specific gate cannot be dialled. However if there is still some space for the event horizon to form, then etc." This may be debateable since we don't know the exact circumstance in 100 days, nor for how to effectively "block" the gate.—Raven6666 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Something I thought of that is a possible difference between the film and the show canon is the unstable vortex. In the television series, it is shown that the unstable vortex of energy that the Stargate ejects (the water splooshing effect) disintegrates any matter that is in it's way. If this were true in the film, when the Stargate that was buried on earth was activated, it should have destroyed all the rock matter in front of it, preventing Ra's guards from becoming fossils. As this is not the case, it would seem that the unstable vortex in the film does not have the same properties as the one in the television show. —75.165.187.80 12:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ra's body

In the movie Ra had a humanoid body, while in the series he was a "snake". Would not the symbiote consider the first host or maybe the one he has had the longest to be his true face. When Ra came to earth, he probably had had that host for quite a while, and that was his first "external" face. at the moment he died, he remembered that body.--Edgjerp 15:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the canon is that the Goa'uld were not established as symbiotes/"snakes" in the original movie. The Ra that possessed the boy's body in the movie is the alien-humanoid form you see at the end, and it is never explained how that form possesses the body. The "snake" Goa'uld were established for the series in contradiction to the movie, but there are more inconsistancies than just the one between the original movie and the television series. —Ka'lel 19:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is...

When Apophis (the Goa'uld) died, his host aged almost immediately. If Ra's host was much, much older... The "alien face" might be a very rapidly aged and dying host.

Just a thought. Deathbunny 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article says that the possession was unexplained, but that is not entirely true. The line saying that the alien took the boy and possessed his body like "some kind of a pararsite looking for a host" is an analogy, not a literal description. That means that the alien taking the boy's body is akin to parasitism, not literally.

As for how he did it, the novelization reveals a great deal; the alien was able to take a new body because he had some sort technology that would enable possession of another being. That means that on his own, he wasn't a parasite at all, for the possession that took place was an unnatural process. He was an ancient alien from another galaxy who was searching the universe for an apropriate replacement body, for his own was on the verge of death.

Apparently, he had to choose a host carefully, for the technology had some considerable drawbacks; he would inherit the personality traits of his host, which means that he would want one much like himself. Perhaps this is another reason for why he chose the boy Ra, other than the easy repair of a human body via the sarcophagus(originally, Ra was the name of the boy, not the alien, who simply reappropriated that name when he took his body).

As for the possession itself, it seemed to be more of a merger than a possession, for the alien and the boy merged into one being. Interestingly at the end, when he sees the bomb on his ship, the alien wrenches itself free from Ra's body, which promptly dies and "ages 10,000 years" (disintegrates). This seems to suggest that it is as though the alien was "supporting" or maintaining the body somehow, suggesting some sort of energy effect or bonding process had occurred.

Also he'd need to take a host body quickly, or he himself would die, which happens when the bomb goes of in the book, where it describes the "light-like creature turns solid, then bursts into a million particles." Its as if he was in a sort of "energy" state that then solidifies and disintegrates when it is by itself.

My hypothesis is that this tech was an offshoot of the dematerialization/rematerialization tech found in the Stargates, the Rings. I imagine that the technology would turn the alien into a sort of phase-shifting "ghost", which is composed of matter that is in the dissassociated state that matter is when it is going through a gate. He'd then be able to attach himself to a new body because he would be able to "meld"/bond himself to it.

True, this is speculation based on non-canonical material, but its the best I can think of for this topic. In reality, they probably didn't think it out, and the Goa'uld symbiotes are more logical anyway.

--Exalted Obliteration 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Chevrons

Listed in the table that contrasts the differences between the two stargate cannons is a point about how the chevrons engage. This article claims that in the movie all chevrons lock, while in the series only the top chevron locks, while the others simply glow. This is not actually true. There are many examples in which all seven chevrons lock in the series. For example, if anyone watches the SG-1 episode "The Fifth Race" the other chevrons, not just the top chevron are all shown locking. This is not an isolated example, as there are many other episodes which show all of the chevrons actually locking and not just glowing.

During the series, when dialing the gate using a DHD (dial home device) all the chevrons light up but do not manually lock, only the point of origin (the top chevron) locks. However, when dialing the earth gate using a manual dialing program the top chevron locks and engages not only the point of origin but the other 6 chevrons during the dialing sequence as well. The DHD has a form of digital interaction with the gate locking each cheveron as the correct symbol passes by it, whereas the earth gate is dialed completely manually and mechanically. This also accounts for the earth gate dialing much slower than a gate being dialed with a DHD. It was established in the season one episode The Torment of Tantalus that the gate needs to build up enough charge for the inner ring to be unlocked, allowing the gate to be dialed. A DHD can do this in a much more efficiant manner and does not need to manually engage each chevron like the humans dialing sequence does. It is a limitation of the human made interface. That is the discrepancy between the chevrons that lock (manual human interface) and the chevrons that simply light up (DHD). (Samuel Nichols 8/28/09)

MGM Stuff

Can we just clear this up, if something said in the MGM tech journal or something similar like a dvd collection that contradicts something said or shown on the show, then does the show or the MGM stuff take higher canon. I personally thing it should be the show but when it comes to ammo its a toughy. I remember an article I think on the Gateship where me and someone else were argueing that the tech journal says it has 6 drones but on the show they fire more and still have full pods? In situations like that which is higher canon the show or MGM stuff made a while before the episode, and the answer should probably be in this article, mabye a table of canon order or something similar? Sman789 01:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The MGM tech journal is cannon just like the DVD magazines, and we go by it in the same way as the magazines too. So, they are higher cannon than the show... According to Jaymach... who we go by (if that's the right phrase). Although it's not without its mistakes. It shows the bridge on a 304 in the structure in the rear, when it is unmistakeably shown in SGA that it is indeed at the start of the neck.—Anubis 10545 01:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we can include information in the magazines and tech journals that dont contradict with whats seen on the show, but when they do contradict each other, like the bridge bit, which one do me mention. Where did we actually put the bridge in the wiki?

We put the bridge at the beginning of the neck on this wiki. Some information is just indisputable and is clearly shown in the show (such as the bridges location, as you can clearly see its location in Allies). When we go by the MGM tech and DVD magazines, it's mainly for things which they've shown in the show and we have an understanding of, but don't have any background info on... such as the length of ships and the number of railguns a 304 has...—Anubis 10545 17:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So you mean like all the information thats on the DVD mags and the MGM tech we put into the wiki but as soon as the show shows something different then we use the show's info instead? Sman789 19:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes... I mean, using our understanding of the show, we know that it's extremely unlikely that O'Neill-class ships are powered with naquadria. However, on the show, they've never actually said what powers it. So, because the only source we have that actually does say what powers it is a DVD magazine which says naquadria, that's what we go by. Now, if they made a new episode of Stargate and they said that it was powered by Neutronium, we would put that it was powered by Neutronium on this wiki. Although there's sort of a fine line.—Anubis 10545 20:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Anubis & Horus Guards Don't Have "Eye of Ra" tattoos in the movie

This claim is false. Anubis & the Horus Guards DO have "Eye of Ra" tattoos in the movie, but on the upper arm as opposed to the forehead as shown on SG-1. 64.180.93.200 00:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Internal contradictions

What about all of the contradictions in the scenario? For example:

• The fact that everyone speaks english most of the times, but sometimes not. Just one example: when Vala and Daniel are transported to the Ori galaxy for the first time, Daniel says the communication device must translate for them, but when they go by Stargate in the Ark of Truth, or during the Ori crusade, suddenly it's not an issue anymore. Languages are an issue or not depending on what serves the show the best at the moment.
• When Daniel ascends, his body remains, but when Adria ascends, hers disappear (too bad, they could have use it to make her believers think she was dead).
• In Continuum, the Tok'ra use one of their devices to extract Ba'al from its host, and it seems a very easy procedure, but when they extract it from Adria, they use surgery, it lasts a long time and finally it fails.
• At some points it's said that when a symbiote dies, it naturally release a toxine into the host, and it takes a great deal of effort for a symbiote to avoid it. Why did the host of Apophis survived when it's symbiote died? (before it was captured and revived by Sokar)
• Why didn't the Tok'ra use a sarcophage to revive their queen? They are against the use of this technology because it "poisons the mind", but when Daniel used it, it seems that it took a few sessions before having any effect. O'Neill used it once without any side effect. According to what was at stake here (the survival of the Tok'ra lineage), they should have make an exception.

These are just a few examples from the episodes I watch recently, but actually the whole show is full of such contradictions: something that is not a issue in one episode becomes a issue in the next.

the horus and anubis guard did have a markign or ra on their arm near their shoulders

Ok well first of all, This is a talk page. Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) or by using the signature button.

Second, i will try my best to inform you of the things you have said that are either incorrect, mislead or correct :)

• English is much easier to be written for a story than having 50 different languages to almost Invent such as the Goa'uld
• When Daniel ascends, we (the viewers) do not see if his body remains or not (SG1: "Meridian")
• Because Continuum is considered canonical, We can presume that the Tok'ra have finally managed to perfect the removal of a symbiote. That is the impression i got from the movie.
• About Aphophis' Symbiote, this is probably a technical error made by the writers, and they might not have thought about it too much, but you are correct.
• And finally about the Tok'ra Egeria and the Sarcophagus; Although it is a fact that it poisons the mind, as you have stated and also what we (the viewers) see in the series that it takes more than a dozen times of using it to actually start to change a person. The are 3 possible explanations for your question, 1. It would of been too convenient for them to use one and therefore the writers thought it would be better to kill her off (which could also be the choice of the actress, maybe she couldn't be in more than 1 episode), 2. The Tok'ra might not have been able to procure a Sarcophagus in enough time to save her or 3. It might have been Egeria's choice not to be revived (because she has been bottled up in that tank for at least 50 years and another couple of hundred years in stasis.)

That's just my 2 cents worth, it may or may not be entirely correct :) --Jenkins08 ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 01:28, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

RPG whatever Kassorlae ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 00:47, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Can the RPG stuff be offset from subjects that address normal articles, similar to Memory-Alpha where theend of an article has a subsection for apocrypha?

I've been reading some articles on a lot of topic here lately, as I re-watch the series, and a? really bothered when there are things muddled and cited from within the RPG universe. Like? Chulakian? /? Chulakians. There are no indications that they are a seperate race within Jaffa - just that they live other planets and server different? Goa'uld? 's. Any consencus before I begin editing articles en-masse?

Kassorlae ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 00:47, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

The RPG material was considered fully canon at the time of publishing, as has been discussed on this wiki several times. The Chulakian name, however, comes from the novelization of Children of the Gods which we have no known canon status for. The only things we do know are officially canon are the shows, the movie, Stargate Worlds (what little we know of it), the RPG material, and The DVD Collection magazines. The Fandemonium novels are also considered canon, but at a lesser level, being "secondary" canon. However, we are taking the same stance as the Star Wars wiki rather than the Star Trek wiki and are including all information, with the licensed material with unknown canon status being marked as such. Everything else stays in at the same level as the shows. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:32, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's just annoying to have all of that "info" all smashed together! What about making additional sentences that cite them specifically, rather than ? a list of episodes and RPG cited for a single statement?

I only mention it because the way it currently is, it feels really hard to know which attributions belong to which data. I'm not arguing canon v. non-canon, I'm trying to see if there is a more *clear* way of showing the source for facts.

Big Finish

Has there been any talk on the canonicty of Big Finish? It's audio stories that the official Stargate page has pushed, and the actors all play their own characters. 74.215.248.245 19:32, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Ra's royal guard

I do not know, if it is there mentioned in the discussion, I didn't find it, but the table says, that the movie does not know the Jaffa and the Ra's royal guard for the continuity with the show-truths is also made of Jaffas...

Well I disagree. In the first episode Jack O'Neill specifically claims (over the dead body of a jaffa), that on Abydos there were no such creatures. Which meanss that even by the show's continuity, Ra was not using jaffas on his personal ship.

The table sounds like the guards from the movie were retconed for the continuity with the show to be jaffas, while the first episode of the show confirms there was not a single jaffa during the Abydos adventure.

Niu 23:22, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

Origins

Stargate Origins has a Stargate very similar to the one in the movie, having the same top chevron, same style of locking (on respective symbol rather than all on the top chevron), no chevron lights, the strudel, and the exact same sound effects, but it does have the symbols protruding rather than carved. The ring count is also the same as in the movie (9) and the ring effects have the "disassembly" effect used in the movie instead of just a white flash.

Does this make Origins part of the movie universe? DarkerBit ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 11:36, March 16, 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question actually! All I know is that the original SG-1 crew who made SG-1 and then Atlantis; Brad Write, RDA, Jonathan Glassner and Martin Wood intentionally made the stargate and several other things different in the show than in the movie. There was a thing about Martin in the episode Point of No Return which sort of hints at there being some kind of government cover-up going on, and I think that reveals something about the reason stargate became a series in the first place. User:RyaNayR/Signature 00:28, March 22, 2020 (UTC)