Talk:Ra (Stargate)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Television: Stargate

	Television portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
	This redirect is supported by the Stargate task force.

Future appearances

Ra will appear in the 2-part Season 8 finale Moebius. - John-1107

Metaphysically

I REALLY don't want to haggle over yet another issue...but in the commentary for the film, Emmerich mentions Ra's "ghost" in the boy several times, and the film itself obviously shows a "ghostly" facial image on the boy. This Wikipedia entry even states how when Ra was angered in the film, the original alien's conciousness can be seen. The "burning eyes" as Devlin called them, were also supposed to be from the fact that the boy was possessed by Ra's spirit. Me putting in the word "metaphysically" is NOT opinion, and is totally within context of the film. I'm going to listen to the commentary on my Ultimate Edition DVD again (right now) to confirm everything I've said. --Promus Kaa

As long as it is in the commentary then I have no issue with it. Could you tell me what scene it is once you find it so that I can check. Konman72 02:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have the Ultimate Edition DVD of the film?? You seem like more of an SG-1 fan...I'm surprised you have it. As for the commentary, I just got done listening to it during the Ra parts. The "spirit" thing is in my memory either from the novel or another part of the commentary that I didn't see, but I didn't hear it during the parts that I watched. The "burning eyes" comment by Devlin was said when Ra goes over to check Daniel's dead body right after the first throne room scene. Other then that, they do mention the "alien face" in the boy during the scene that Ra gets nuked. And I think there's some pretty obvious metaphysical imagry in the film, as well, what with Ra's true face "glowing," and when it's visible his entire aura "glows," as well, in a traditionally ghostly manner. Don't make me contact Emmerich to confirm it directly from him, lol. --Promus Kaa

Yeah I have the Ultimate Edition, it was a pretty enjoyable film but I had to get it after becoming a huge SG-1 fan lol, also it was for sale for $10! Who could pass that up? Anyway, I don't think we should make the statement that the possession was metaphysical without die-hard proof. I think it was definitely implied in the film, but without a statement we should leave it the way it is. Since we state how you can see the alien face when he gets mad etc. we leave it to the reader to decide for themselves whether it was physical or metaphysical.

I got the film for $10, too, but I'm not a fan of Glassner's poorly-researched version of StarGate. I guess if you want to leave out the one word "metaphysical," you can, but since in the film Ra was shown to be humanoid, I don't think people are going to decide that it was physical possession, lol (unless they decide Ra possessed him "Men in Black" style...LOL) --Promus Kaa

Picture

I would suggest that we use this picture:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/Deloravius/stargate_ra_mask.jpg

Due to the fact that it's his first appearence, and as such, it should be the picture representing him. Also, it's a good straight-on picture of his Mask. --Promus Kaa

To be honest, I think that an unmasked Ra would be better, although that is a good picture. -- SFH 16:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we do, though, a picture of Ra from the film is what we should have up there, since that's his first appearence.--Promus Kaa 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring SG-1 character

Is it really accurate to call Ra a recurring SG-1 character? I mean, he's extremely vital to the mythology of Stargate, and the most powerful Goa'uld, but really, he was only in one episode. -- SFH 19:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err... He was in the movie as well... thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Something else"

I remember reading in the book that continued the movie (the original direction of the story before they thought up SG1) the other system lords were talking about how Ra was "something else" from what they are. Could he have been a Goa'uld or even ascended/half-ascended? The ascended part would constitute original research but the "something else" comment should be noted. --Energman 10:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not positive, it's been a while since I read those books (I never really got into them, I've always liked SG-1 better), but I'm pretty sure that (In the books) Ra was the only actual alien around, the other "Gods" were normal humans who Ra had taken and trained into acting like gods to the slaves (After all, he can't be everywhere and rule everyone at once, he needs a few assistants). It's not that he was ascended or anything like that, just a normal alien (Which was, by itself, different from the other "Gods"). Still, the books are quite drastically not cannon and do not jive with the series at all, to include their information would severely contradict practically everything else in the article. Even something as small as noting the "something else" would raise issues. JBK405 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about all the other gods. But at least the first book is a different canon from the show. It was written waaaay before SG1 and was supposed to be next movie as far as I know. Both continuities tie into the movie. That's why this line kind of bothers me:

Within the movie, when Ra became angry the outline of another being could be seen within the host. This portion appears to be in direct contradiction to Stargate SG-1, where the true Goa'uld is a serpent-like ...

Come to think of it are we ever told in SG-1 that Ra was Goa'uld?--Energman 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They mention it several times in th series, stating his position as ruler of the Goa'uld, father of the Goa'uld, and also as one of the Goa'uld; according to the show there's no doubt as to Ra's species. Though both SG-1 and the novels split off from the movie (They have the same base), only SG-1 is officially considered cannon by those who own the rights to the series (And the books actually aren't as "true to the vision" as they claim to be since, though the author apparently used original movie notes in his writing, it still wasn't actually written with creator or author input). The Stargate articles, except those which specifically deal with non-canon info (Like these novels and Infinity), follow the official version, and right now that's SG-1, not the novels (Although I wouldn't object if somebody added a "Non-Canon info from the novels" section, or something like that). JBK405 21:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ra in 'Moebius Part I'.jpg

Image:Ra in 'Moebius Part I'.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Yes I want a discussion about a merge. Sgeureka, this is not how you merge articles at all. Most people set a {{template:Merge}}, then let the community discuss on what should be done. And with regards to the article, you said that Ra was a major Goa'uld, and he was a significant part of the mythology. -- SFH (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem at all. I added him to the merge discussion at Talk:Goa'uld characters in Stargate#Merger. Please state your opinion there for what actions should be taken to bring this article in line with WP:FICT. – sgeureka ^t•c —Preceding comment was added at 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ra in 'Moebius Part I'.jpg

Image:Ra in 'Moebius Part I'.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ra original humanoid.jpg

Image:Ra original humanoid.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]