My basic opinion is that reboots of things like this are a bad idea, if they want to do more of this, continue from where it left off. At the end of the day the original creators lost control of their work, and the TV series and it's spin offs (which included a few movies like "Ark Of Truth") are what made it successful even if some fans of the original movie did not care for the directions the TV series wound up going in. The eventual failure of the Stargate spin offs was due to some bad choices in creating things like "Stargate: Universe" which was to say they were drawn out and did not feature any really likable characters that resonated with fans. The animated series was a bad idea to begin with, as it was aimed at a younger audience, and really that wasn't the core target for the franchise to begin with even if a number of youngsters watched it.
All a "Stargate" reboot is going to do is upset the same fan base they want to impress. It might be profitable, but it won't be popular, and probably won't be enduring. I look at the whole JJ Abrams reboot of Star Trek, which was borderline insulting to the original, it made a ton of money, but serious Trekkies who are the ones who still form the backbone of the support network at best consider it an alternate universe and have made it rather clear the only thing they take seriously is the so called "Prime" universe based on the ongoing TV continuity. What's more these guys don't really have quite the staying power or hype of "JJ Abrams" despite their success, JJ had a number of fan hits under his belt (Lost, Alias, etc...) which is partly why he even got the chance to win people over (twice). Maybe if the original Stargate creators had already done a couple of TV series with ongoing fan bases (like "Losties") that had made it 3 or 4 years and concluded (for good or ill) people might be receptive to them rebooting a beloved franchise, or at least willing to listen to the attempt. JJ at least sold himself as being a fan of the successful IP, where our returning "Stargate" team has been blunt about disliking the material that made this popular enough for another movie
to even be considered, they are pretty much staring off with a slap to the face of the fans, and planning on running with what was the least popular part of the entire franchise, and ironically exists largely as a footnote/prequel to
the stuff that was actually popular.
While this might slot people off, I'd consider the real "Owner" of Stargate at this point, at least from a fan perspective (ignoring legal ownership of the rights) to be Richard Dean Anderson. The thing to understand is that he started out starring in it, but also produced a lot of the stuff, and apparently had a lot of say over where it went. It's one of those shows where the cast was the show on a lot of levels, and some of them like Amanda tapping managed to leverage that experience and role into turning their pet web projects into full blown TV series ("Sanctuary" had a decent run for a genera show, going on 4 years if I remember).
It's sort of like "Charmed", and how Alyssa Milano pretty much shut down the whole idea of doing another version of it, or so it seems, with a wiser studio. The bottom line being is that she was one of the stars, but her and Holly Marie Combs pretty much WERE the show, having not just acted in it, but keeping it alive due financing it and joining the producers, which in turn gave them a degree of creative control as to where it went.
Love or hate MacGyver (Richard Dean Anderson) the bottom line was he was the guy who made the show what it was and kept it going to the point where you could get spin offs and such. He's the guy I ultimately think should act as the sounding board for the IP even if he's not going to produce and sound in it. The wise would probably confer with Amanda Tapping as well (I don't remember if the other members of the cast got involved in producing or creatively helmed their own shows based on their success with Stargate, and what they learned from it).
