Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 12:37:24 -0800
From: KERRYIRS@aol4tag.com
Subject: Re: It's a team effort!

I think that Freddy has become a convenient scape goat for many fans. Yeah,
there are things in both Trek and 1999 that he has to take credit/blame for,
but let's also remember that Roddenberry had basically quit doing Trek in
it's third year, so who was the Exec in charge? And where was Anderson in the
second season? If he didn't like what Freddy was doing, why didn't he express
it? I have never heard him say that he objected to anything that Freddy was
doing until after the fact.

Let's also remember that ITC had a hand in the "changes" to some degree. They
were always clamouring for more action, more action. I'll give Freddy the
share of the blame, but I also give some to Anderson and Sylvia, ITC and any
other decision-maker involved. 

Let's face facts, the concept of 1999 was hard to swallow, ok. So, that's one
you can't lay on Freddy. The critics, after the initial rave reviews, had
already started to lay into this series long before he got there. I sincerely
doubt that there was much that anyone could have done to change the minds of
many as to what this series "ought to be or should have been." 

As I also remember, many stations didn't renew, despite what the PR mill was
turning out. Do we blame Freddy for that too?

Give Freddy the blame for many things that appeared in the second season, but
let's give him credit for some of the good things too. It wasn't the whiz
bang SFX that made me a fan of this series, or even the stories; that all
came later. I missed the first season when it first aired and caught up with
them later and became a fan of the entire show. It was Freddy's character,
Maya and Catherine Schell that caught my attention. It was a character and
the people aspects that Freddy brought to the series that made me a fan.

So, let's stop and at least think before we pass judgement. It's like a
quarterback on a football team; when he screws up, he is the one that takes
the brunt of the criticism. Perfect example is Pittsbutg's QB in last week's
Super Bowl. Yes, he threw two bad passes, but who is to say that the receiver
missed the route? It is all a great team effort and one man does not a team
make or break.

Freddy had the everyday control of the series, but Anderson, to me, was
supposed to have the final word as Executive Producer. Did he shirk his
duties? Ponder, ponder.

Well, that is it for now. Anyway, this can go on forever. Until the "real
story" comes, we'll never know. Where is Freddy these days. I'd like to hear
his side of the story.

Kerry


Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 18:08:44 -0800
From: gwr@easy44net.co.uk (Gareth Randall)

Freddy was pretty much forced onto Gerry by ITC, who claimed that the
British didn't understand the American market. Gerry is on record as saying
that as soon as he realised the extent of the changes that Freddy wished to
make, he officially gave him title as producer, because he felt that he
himself could no longer put his name as producer to a product that he did
not believe in 100%.

Fanderson's "Making of Space:1999" documentary includes brand-new interviews
with all the principal people involved, actors and production crew alike,
and they all say basically the same thing - Freiberger's changes were
universally disliked, but they all needed to feed themselves and their
families and keep a roof over their heads, so unavoidable necessity forced
them to go along and give it as best they could. Martin Landau, in
particular, is extremely scathing - he had been very happy with the way
Season 1 had gone, and felt that Season 2 was virtually a betrayal of the
audience and an insult to their intelligence. He was very upset at the
departure of Barry Morse, whom he describes as "a great actor and a very
special person", and said that he "fought like a tiger" to keep him, but to
no avail.

>Let's also remember that ITC had a hand in the "changes" to some degree. They
>were always clamouring for more action, more action. I'll give Freddy the
>share of the blame, but I also give some to Anderson and Sylvia, ITC and any
>other decision-maker involved. 

Sylvia had nothing to do with Season 2. She and Gerry separated at the party
to launch Season 1.

>Let's face facts, the concept of 1999 was hard to swallow, ok. So, that's one
>you can't lay on Freddy.

No-one's trying to. Most people's problems with Season 2 pivot around the
comic-strip characterisation (where characterisation exists at all) and the
endless rubber monsters running down corridors.

>The critics, after the initial rave reviews, had
>already started to lay into this series long before he got there. I sincerely
>doubt that there was much that anyone could have done to change the minds of
>many as to what this series "ought to be or should have been." 

The critics weren't the people Freddy and the rest of the team were trying
to wow - it was the viewers. Sadly, his vision of Space:1999 simply
alienated them.

> It was Freddy's character,
>Maya and Catherine Schell that caught my attention. It was a character and
>the people aspects that Freddy brought to the series that made me a fan.

Maya was a potentially interesting character, but helped to ruin the series'
credibility by changing into a variety of extremely unconvincing and highly
embarrassing men in rubber suits. I vastly preferred her when she was plain
ol' ordinary Maya!

>Freddy had the everyday control of the series, but Anderson, to me, was
>supposed to have the final word as Executive Producer. Did he shirk his
>duties? Ponder, ponder.

Ponder this : you are the executive producer of a reasonably successful
programme. You've just completed your first season and are hoping for a
renewal. The men in suits who control the money have said yes, but that they
want to install their own man as producer, and he is to shape a new format
and direction for the show. In other words, he's got creative control,
because he's American and he worked on the least popular season of Star Trek
- and if he worked on Star Trek, he's *got* to be the man for the job. What
do *you* do now? Oh, go and play with the budgets or something - after all,
executive producers just oversee the general logistics of production, don't
they? We could probably do without one, to be honest... but of course,
you'll be totally cooperative, won't you? If you're not happy with this
then, well, you can just go screw yourself, and please close the door on the
way out.

What is totally inescapable is that Freiberger made wholesale changes to the
programme that upset the cast, crew and audience. As Martin Landau himself
says, S:1999 never needed to be Star Trek; unfortunately Freiberger didn't
listen.

Gareth


Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 22:16:08 -0800
From: ggreg@nwu4tag.edu (Ggreg)
Subject: YEAR 2

gareth, thanks for the info spelling out what really went on with year 2.
i was glad to hear it was mostly out of gerry's control, 'cause i always
wondered what the hell he was thinking.

i can't even watch any year 2 episodes, even the couple that are tolerable,
just because i miss so terribly all the elements which made year 1 and 1999
so memorable.  another words, i felt i was watching an entirely different
series!

it was the ultimate depressing thing for me as a young (and adult now) SF fan:
someone from star trek (which i was never very fond of) destroying my
favorite tv series.  1999 was/is totally unique in it's approach to SF
space adventure.
in my opinion it is one of the very few (OUTER LIMITS -original-, PRISONER)
SF series that closely resembles alot of good SF literature. capturing the
same sort of awe and sense of wonder and mystery that 2001 did.

to me star trek, even at it's best is not really SF as such, but more in
the sub-genre of space opera. same with BLAKE's 7, in a more existential,
adult way.  and DR WHO (which i love) fits into every SF catagory there is:
science-fantasy, "hard", space opera, time travel, etc, etc.

1999 had one season of dark, existential, mysterious SF adventure that was
unique and simply awe-inspiring.

and i miss it very much.


Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 12:09:16 -0800
From: Amardeep_Chana@xn.xerox4tag.com (Chana,Amardeep)
Subject: Re: It's a team effort!

>The critics weren't the people Freddy and the rest of the team were trying
>to wow - it was the viewers. Sadly, his vision of Space:1999 simply
>alienated them.

Well said, Gareth.  I also disagree with the assertion that the show 
 was already under critical fire and could not be saved.  If instead of 
 degrading the show's strengths the new producer simply fixed the 
 perceived weaknesses (i.e. character development) it could have 
 developed and sustained a market for itself.  It did come at a time 
 when there was a dearth of good sci-fi television.

Instead of good stories and great sci-fi we got a weekly fix of 
 space_cowboy_yeehaw_pass_the_beer_bang_bang_boom_monster_dead.  And 
 that incidental music really made me ill.

(sigh)

Amardeep


Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 12:34:04 -0800
From: Philippa@sidle.demon4tag.co.uk (Philippa Sidle)

In message <199602042036.MAA05676@quack.kfu.com> KERRYIRS@aol.com writes:
> I missed the first season when it first aired and caught up with
> them later and became a fan of the entire show. It was Freddy's character,
> Maya and Catherine Schell that caught my attention. It was a character and
> the people aspects that Freddy brought to the series that made me a fan.

Despite Gareth's cogent arguments, no-one should assume that season 2 is
universally disparaged. What Kerry says here reflects my experience - I
was always a season 2 fan first of all, and if the show had been cancelled
after the first season I would never have been addicted. I believe that
when George Eichler, who runs the Space: 1999 Fan Activity Network, polled
everyone who subscribes to his Guide he found a small majority who preferred
season 2.

It comes down to taste. Season 1 and season 2 are so different in style,
content and characterisation that they are each bound to appeal to separate
audiences, almost as if they were different shows. I don't think it's worth
arguing about because of this, but I do like to pop my head above the
parapet occasionally to say that we season 2 aficianados exist! 



Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 14:47:46 -0800
From: Petiepry@aol4tag.com
Subject: WOW!

I am actually amazed at the amount of criticism heaped on our show.  I wonder
if that comes from our reflections as adults watching a show that was made
20+ years ago.  I guess I was surprised that there were so many problems with
the production-I am always learning something from you all.

I can't help but be an overall fan but do admit I like the Maya
character-dumb monsters and everything.  When I first watched the show at age
12 or 13, the costumes, dialect, special effects were great.  It is hard for
me to look at it now after Star Wars, the newer Star Trek, etc.  I do admit
that I got a chuckle out of the moonbuggy effects when I began watching the
show again on the Sci Fi channel.

At any rate, Space  1999 has a place in my heart(okay-very sappy I know)!



Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 09:27:03 -0800
From: a_tucker@delta44net.com (Ande Tucker)
Subject: Re: It's a team effort!

Well said Gareth and Amardeep. Obviously without going into the Year 1 Vs.
Year 2 debate too much, I always wondered why I didn't enjoy Johnny Byrnes
Year 2 stories.... He was my favourite first season writer and yet the
second season just seemed to swallow him up in
it's....whatever....yuckyness.....I suppose. He was there from the virtual
begining, wrote The Biological Soul (The Metamorph) before Fast Freddie
arrived on the scene, but it was so, dreadful, what a bog standard way to
introduce the 'resident alien' (bet she didn't have a Green Card!). I know
it was a re-write, but even so..... All those different writers,
commissioned at the same time, all turning in scripts without any idea of
the previous twelve shows, what sort of effort is that to boost a flagging
show? I forget offhand which show mentions about a black hole - but fer
cryin' out loud - they went through one in the first season! Did everybody
forget about the Bergman field? What suprises me even more is the cast
didn't have some sway, saying, look, continuity wise, this has already
happened, lets at least make an excuse why the field doesn't work. If it
was a true team effort, maybe they would've.

Ande



Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:21:14 -0800
From: mpoindexter@class44train.com (Marshall Poindexter)
Subject: Re: S1999: It's a team effort!

An interesting observation, Ande. Not to draw too many comparisons, but I
do find it equally interesting to contrast that all three of the "modern"
(Next Gen, DS9, and Voyager) Star Trek series have offered the actors quite
a bit of leeway in having sway regarding continuity, character development,
etc. Also, while I'm sure there has been at least a little acrimony between
modern Star Trek series' cast members, on the whole it seems the casts - on
all three series - reportedly get along rather well. That seems a far cry
from what we hear about the leeway given S1999 actors and crew and their
sometimes tense relations (I'm thinking in particular about some reported
animosity toward Catherine Schell).

Does anyone think part of the reason for the difference might be American
vs. British TV production? Has British production been historically less
open to actor's comments? Anyone care to comment, particularly from the
Eastern side of the Atlantic?



Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 13:53:55 -0800
From: gwr@easy44net.co.uk (Gareth Randall)

The focal point of the animosity towards Catherine Schell was Barbara Bain.
She was fully aware that ITC had decided that the series needed a younger
female lead, and tried her hardest to prevent Catherine getting the job.
Gerry wanted Catherine as soon as the character of Maya was forced upon the
production, but he had to audition and screen-test over forty actresses,
just to give Barbara the impression that they were trying their hardest to
find the right person.  One of the screen-test photos appears in the "Making
of..." documentary; it's of an African girl in a skimpy negligee standing in
Command Centre while Tony and Alan look on in an extremely sexist manner!

>Does anyone think part of the reason for the difference might be American
>vs. British TV production? Has British production been historically less
>open to actor's comments? Anyone care to comment, particularly from the
>Eastern side of the Atlantic?

I would have said that British TV production has traditionally been more
open to actors' comments than American TV. Given our vastly lessened
dependence on commercials and keeping sponsors happy, our TV is historically
much more experimental and open to new ideas and radical approaches than
most USA TV, which is often too safe, wholesome and bland for its own good.
That's changed a bit in recent years; I hope that the networks continue to
take risks.



Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 14:02:38 -0800
From: gwr@easy44net.co.uk (Gareth Randall)
Subject: Re: It's a team effort!

Martin Landau was just about the only member of the crew who had enough
clout and security to be able to even try and make a stand against the
changes in Season 2 (ITC were desperate to get rid of Barbara Bain, and were
just waiting for her to do something that would have enabled them to void
her contract). In his recent interview for the "Making of..." documentary,
he explains that he often went to Freiberger to query inconsistencies of
plot and characterisation, but always received the same reply : "No-one will
notice". To me, that simply speaks volumes for Freiberger's total failure to
comprehend the fact that science fiction fans, in particular, are
intelligent, thinking, questioning people... and they *did* notice!

Gareth



Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:49:12 -0800
From: Roberto Coli (MC7741@mc44link.it)

I believe that Freiberger has right when I said "No-one will notice".

This because in his mind S:1999 was a wide spread show that
had to be seen by MILLIONS of people; well, we (and I means the
real S. fans that have found a way to group together)  will be
at least 100 ??? 200???; too few to make any influence compared
to million people that have not noticed any change, seeing the
shows while
zapping between several channels, or having lunch.

I heard instead that Star-trek fans have influenced the production
of the film about the death of Spok. I wonder how many fans will
collect Star-trek compared to S:1999 ?
Could be possible in the future, if ever Hollywood production
will start the making
of SPACE:1999 THE MOTION PICTURE to say something in the matter?

Regards.

Roberto Coli

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 17:21:21 -0800
From: KERRYIRS@aol4tag.com
Subject: Re: Balanced view.

Greetings:

In response to Gareth's response to me, let me say that he has me at a
distinct disadvantage; he has seen that Fanderson video and I haven't. I'm
not a member. The comments made by those who worked on the series are their
own opinions and I respect them for it. However, I believe that 1999 would
have ended after year one if that format had continued. As Gareth points out,
the show was relatively popular, everwhere except in its home country of
England. But that popularity was slipping, even to the point that some
stations here didn't even pick the series up for its second season.

I agree with Gareth that ITC has to take much of the blame for the
"Americanization" of the show. It was they who told Anderson that he needed
an American producer and that Freddy was available. So, Anderson hired him. 

As Gareth says, executive producers are basically traffic cops; they are only
there to see that the office work like budgets etc. get done. But as in the
case of Roddenberry, Anderson is more than the exec. producer, he is also the
creator.  

I know why Roddenberry basically gave up, he was tired of fighting NBC over
content and time slots. Anderson had a similar problem with ITC New York.
They were always telling him how it should be done. After a while he probably
got tired of it as well.

I am, however, a little tired of fans laying all of the blame off on poor old
Freddy. He gave ITC exactly what they asked for, more action/adventure. He
also did something else, he got rid of the so-called MUF, so dubbed by
"Starlog Magazine." For those of you who don't remember, MUF stands for
Mysterious Unknown Force. This is this God-like something that pulls the
Alphans out of trouble numerous times during Year 1. Ironic, isn't it, this
is the same knock that critics of Maya lay on that character without as much
as commenting on the MUF/over bearing religious bent of Year 1.

Speaking of critics, Gareth speaks of the producers not playing to the
critics. Well, he must know that critics can make or break a series or a
movie. There has been many a critic that has ruined the lives of Hollywood
actors in the past. So don't take critics lightly.

All I'm saying is that let there be a balanced view on why 1999 didn't go
past two seasons. The premise was hard to take, but I know why Anderson used
the plot device, to get the show and Alpha away from Earth, so that it
wouldn't be a take off on "UFO."  
The first season scripts lacked something, perhaps characters that were
rather cold for almost half the season; characters that were hard to like,
hard to feel something for. At least Year 2 had characters that were far more
human and caring.

Now after saying that, let me stress that I enjoy Year 1 and many of its
concepts. Barry Gray's music is classic. 

Finally, I just wish that Anderson and Freiberger had gotten into a room by
themselves and hased out the show's direction before the first script went to
paper. I know that Year 2 had a very tight schedule because of the late
decision to go ahead with the second season. But a few days might have helped
these two men to get to know the other better.

Take care,
Kerry



Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 17:36:03 -0800
From: KERRYIRS@aol4tag.com
Subject: Re: Freddy bashing gets us no where.

Hi, Amerdeep:

You can disagree with the premise that 1999 basically was dead after the
first season all you want, but the fact remains is that ITC did not decide to
renew the series for almost a year. The late renewal put a great time squeeze
on the production team and thus, I think, that is why some of the episodes
liiked rushed.

It's a sad commentary on fans who lay the blame of a show's demise at the
feet of one person. There's enough blame to go around, from ITC all the way
down to Fred and the writers. 

I believe that ITC's delay in deciding to renew was an attempt to get
feedback from fans and, yes, critics as to what they felt the show was
providing and what it needed to further its success (no cracks.) As the
season one started, the reviews were generally possitive, but as the season
wore on, the criticisms started to come in. You can start with Asimov and
work your way down.

It's easy to lay blame at the feet of one man, but in my opinion, ITC and
Anderson have to take their share as well. I have not seen either take the
beating in the fan press as Fred has, and he hasn't said a word to defend
himself in all of this time.

Kerry



Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 20:10:08 -0800
From: Anthony (anthonyd@zeus.argo4tag.net)
Subject: M.U.F.

        Kerry brings up an interesting point...the "MUF" factor...can we
have some discussion on this? What episodes typify the "MUF" factor??? Why
is it so wrong to have a semi-religious bent to the series (Year One)? I
mean..whether you believe in a God or not (or even a "MUF") it is near
miraculous that they survived the initial explosion...if that doesn't call
for a major "MUF" right off the bat, I don't know what does!

       Anyway, it's an interesting cristicism leveled at the show...perhaps
we should discuss it?

       Also, the "cold" characters...I liked Professor Bergman...I liked
Koenig, Helena and Alan...if something happened to them, I, for one, would
certainly feel for them....my rebuttal to the cold characters criticism is
this...picture yourself on this wandering moon...would you be frolicking???
Or would you tend to be rather serious...???? I know which one I'd be...

       Yes, Space:1999's premise is unplausible...but any more so than
humans traveling at faster than light speeds? With human/alien alliances?
And Earth doesn't "age" after the Enterprise leaves at Warp speed??? Come on
guys!

Let's chat!



Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 22:02:11 -0800
From: ggreg@nwu4tag.edu (Ggreg)
Subject: M.U.F./KEEP freddie AWAY FROM SF

well, i for one would never have been a fan of 1999 if both seasons were
like season 2:  more typical, american "sci-fi" comic-book fantasy crap
that did not engage my attention or sexcite my sense of wonder.
you have to admit that year one has a whole feel to it that has never been
replicated in any other tv show, and rarely in film.
and freddie was the one who changed all the writers, all costumes, the
music, sets actors, et. al.  and chose their replacements.  while ITC may
have been the intiators of this, it was freddie who made all the wrong
choices, just like on 3rd season star trek.  he doesn't know SF.  period.
end of story (or series, if you will).  why didn't he use the myriad of
brillant SF tv writers that were writing DR WHO at the time?  they were
freddies choices, no matter who hired him.  he had absolutely no respect
for the series that had come before.  the very things which made the show
unique:
cinematography/directing/actors/sfx/sets/music/atmosphere-mood/hardware,
etc.
he trashed everything and basically started from scratch.  hell, i wouldn't
have minded some more characterization, sometimes, more humour, whatever,
but what he did...
yes it makes me angry.  can you see why i don't like this freddie person?


as for the MUF, i never viewed it in a religious way at all.  i just saw it
as some sort of unexplained phenomenon, that while certainly open to
interpretation as religious/mystical, that would crop up from time to time.
it could have been some "higher intelligence," or just the luck of the
straws.  in any case, i liked that often the shows would end on an
unexplained, sometimes downbeat note, a "what the fuck was that all about,"
if you will.

life, even here on everyday ol' planet earth, is often like that.

ggreg



Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 05:53:22 -0800
From: gwr@easy44net.co.uk (Gareth Randall)
Subject: Re: Balanced view.

>I agree with Gareth that ITC has to take much of the blame for the
>"Americanization" of the show. It was they who told Anderson that he needed
>an American producer and that Freddy was available. So, Anderson hired him. 

No, Freiberger was *forced* onto Anderson. ITC basically said that there
would be no second season without him... I believe the technical expression
is "over a barrel" =;-)

>I am, however, a little tired of fans laying all of the blame off on poor old
>Freddy. He gave ITC exactly what they asked for, more action/adventure. He
>also did something else, he got rid of the so-called MUF, so dubbed by
>"Starlog Magazine."

I have no problem in principle with more action/adventure, and I definitely
have no problem with the general exorcism of the Mysterious Unknown Force
(after all, it seems like almost every other Season 1 episode had its ball
of light taking over an Alphan who would be dead before the end credits, or
its inexplicable last-minute moon-escapes-from-certain-destruction).
However, what I *do* object to is the fact that Freiberger went way
overboard with the "humanising" of the characters. For example, to my mind,
Victor was just about *the* most human character on the base, and yet FF
didn't really want him around (his offer of a contract for the second series
was purely a token, and he was able to get rid of him by not negotiating a
new fee). To suggest (as FF did) that Victor was "too old" a character
demonstrates yet again his total disregard for the intelligence of the
audience. Was it only teens watching this show? I don't think so! 

> Ironic, isn't it, this
>is the same knock that critics of Maya lay on that character without as much
>as commenting on the MUF/over bearing religious bent of Year 1.

I would say that from a science fiction point of view (although Season 2 was
far more science fantasy than fiction) a MUF rescuing the Alphans is a
*little* more acceptable than Maya turning into another rubber monster or
(strangely for someone from Psychon) another Earth-based creature. How many
people can watch Maya as a gorilla saving Alan in The Seance Spectre without
cringing in embarrassment? 

>Speaking of critics, Gareth speaks of the producers not playing to the
>critics. Well, he must know that critics can make or break a series or a
>movie. There has been many a critic that has ruined the lives of Hollywood
>actors in the past. So don't take critics lightly.

There have been very few SF series that *haven't* been panned by the
critics, most of whom seem to be generally averse to the whole genre. That
hasn't stopped them achieving a large and loyal audience.

>All I'm saying is that let there be a balanced view on why 1999 didn't go
>past two seasons. The premise was hard to take, but I know why Anderson used
>the plot device, to get the show and Alpha away from Earth, so that it
>wouldn't be a take off on "UFO."  

Only because Abe Mandel at ITC New York specifically said that he would only
fund the show if Anderson could give him an absolute guarantee that "not
only would they not film on Earth, but that they *couldn't* film on Earth".
Personally, I think that UFO:1999 could have been a real winner (not to say
that S:1999 wasn't, of course - at least in its first season!) 

> At least Year 2 had characters that were far more
>human and caring.

...if with the downside that the "humour" was overplayed and frequently
embarrassing.

> As the
>season one started, the reviews were generally possitive, but as the season
>wore on, the criticisms started to come in. You can start with Asimov and
>work your way down.

Heck, if you're going to create a series with enough scientific accuracy to
keep someone like Asimov happy, you might as well pack up and go home,
because its audience base will be so tiny as to be virtually nonexistent.
Okay, it's fun to debate the lack of accuracy *now*, but I'm sure that we'd
all agree that a certain (large!) amount of dramatic licence was necessary
to pull the concept off at all, and the average Joe watching at home
certainly doesn't give a toss about the impossibility of the Moon managing
to meet a new alien life-form in a new galaxy every week.

>It's a sad commentary on fans who lay the blame of a show's demise at the
>feet of one person. There's enough blame to go around, from ITC all the way
>down to Fred and the writers. 

What's very revealing about the "Making Of..." documentary is that
*everyone*, including Landau, speaks about how Freiberger rode roughshod
over just about every established series concept, dismissing objections with
the airy phrase "No-one will notice". It's widely documented that he was
responsible for rewriting most of the Season 2 scripts, either in whole or
in part, and was particularly keen on changing intelligent, thought-out,
logical "escape" situations into "Maya changes into monster and breaks down
doors" situations.  

Remember, Gerry was virtually impotent in the face of all this - FF was
there at ITC's express wish, and therefore *he* held the reins far more that
Anderson.

>>It's easy to lay blame at the feet of one man, but in my opinion, ITC and
>Anderson have to take their share as well. I have not seen either take the
>beating in the fan press as Fred has, and he hasn't said a word to defend
>himself in all of this time.

Assuming he's still alive, perhaps it's because he now realises that what he
did was indefensible? After all, he's also the man whose creative decisions
steered the final season of Star Trek to cancellation.

Johnny Byrne (script editor of Season 1 and writer of a number of Season 2
episodes) has recently popped up on rec.arts.tv.uk.misc to answer questions
about the "season divide" of S:1999. If I can dig out the old articles, I'll
post them to the list.

Gareth



Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 18:30:50 -0800
From: PatriEmb@aol4tag.com
Subject: Of MUF's and men

On 2-24-96, anthonyd@zeus.argo.net wrote:

>Kerry brings up an interesting point...the "MUF" factor...can we have some
>discussion on this?.......Why is it so wrong to have a semi-religious bent
>to the series (Year One)?

   It's not  wrong to have a semi-religious bent to an outcome.  Although I
only have seen the episodes most recently shown on the Sci-Fi channel ( my
memory isn't that great for the others), I don't think the religious angle
was played that much.  I think it was more the "in the nick of time" rescue,
like in "Alpha Child"

>Also, the "cold" characters....I liked Professor Bergman.. 

    I also liked Bergman.  I don't find him to be cold at all.  In fact, he
seems to be the humanist among the scientific community, even though he was
science officer.  I think Alan seems to be passionate about flying/ eagles,
like a "fighter jock" as in "War Games" before engaging the enemy the first
time, Koenig told him he had Alpha in his hands and Carter responded that he
would take care of them.  Maybe its me, but I thought I heard a slight crack
in his voice.  



Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:58:43 -0800
From: logan@erols4tag.com
[No Subject]

It seems very obvious that I am definitely in the minority here but I shall
venture forth an opinion anyway.


        I happen to think the 2nd season of Space:1999 was far superior to
the first year.  Let's forget about the instances of severe scientific
inaccuracies, since they were present in both seasons.
But instead concentrate on the "tone" of the series.

As much as some people despised it, the revamping of the uniforms and
addition of Maya really improved the action-adventure aspect of the show.
Sooooo much of season 1 was devoted to slow, plodding plotlines devoted to
philosophical musings.  It was just.... boring.  It was a wanna-be cerebral
show.

Now granted, the "NEW" Space:1999 was not without its faults. But at least
it was a little more interesting.  I really happen to think the
characterizations of the players were better developed in year 2.  Maya
brought an infusion of excitement and wonder, which though implausible, was
again...interesting.
Though I have to admit, the point about her morphing into gorillas and
german shepards and hawks (and other earth creatures she would never have
before seen) is well taken.  I actually remember when she morphed into some
Japanese samurai... and the pen she was holding morphed into a sword or a
staff or something!!!!!
Does anyone remember this episode???

For me, and I know I'm gonna be hanged for this, Space:1999 holds a special
place in my heart as being one of those shows that were "so bad that it was
good".  I have always held it to a different standard than I would Star
Trek.  So make no mistake, I like and always have liked Space:1999.
All I'm saying is that we should admit that it was a highly imperfect show
to begin with.  Once it "succumbed" to the pressures of being more action-y,
it became a tad more interesting for many people.



Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 02:53:00 -0800
From: kamurphy@ix.net44com.com
Subject: Re:

You may be in the minority but you're not alone.  I too find Year Two superior 
to Year One (though I am gaining a new respect for what Year One tried to do 
through reruns).  To me, Maya was an interesting character and it's a shame more 
wasn't done with her beyond making her the magic plot device.  The changes in 
characters and character development actually helped the tempo of the show (and, 
let's face it, Year One D-R-A-G-S--O-N--A-N-D--O-N sometimes) because the 
character interaction was far more interesting.

Good luck with the impending firestorm, though...

Kimberly Murphy-Smith (kamurphy@ix.netcom.com)
Managing Editor, POWER STAR Magazine
http://home.aol.com/kimmurphy



Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 05:33:45 -0800
From: Amardeep_Chana@xn.xerox4tag.com (Chana,Amardeep)
Subject: RE: Re:

By firestorm, I hope you don't mean the season I folks are going to 
 give him a hard time... most of us are comfortable with the fact that 
 some people like season II. Indeed, they may even be the majority if 
 FF's pop-appeal worked.

Amardeep



Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 19:06:45 -0800      [Bad Datestamp?]
From: gwr@easy44net.co.uk (Gareth Randall)
Subject: Re: Balanced view.

>As much as some people despised it, the revamping of the uniforms and
>addition of Maya really improved the action-adventure aspect of the show.
>Sooooo much of season 1 was devoted to slow, plodding plotlines devoted to
>philosophical musings.  It was just.... boring.  It was a wanna-be cerebral
>show.

...and therefore a refreshing change from most of the TV sci-fi that had
gone before.

As I stated in a previous post, there's nothing wrong in principle with
plenty of action and adventure, but the crying shame is that Freiberger
didn't seem to realise that you could have action that *wasn't* taken
straight out of a comic strip. He worked on the principles of black and
white, Us versus Them, with the heroes always winning the day and being back
on the base in time for tea, medals and a supposedly "funny" tag scene. In
short, he dealt in LCD TV - Lowest Common Denominator television, and
Space:1999's great strength was that it wasn't supposed to be like that. As
Martin Landau himself says, "We weren't Star Trek - there was no *reason* to
turn us into Star Trek - but that's what happened, unfortunately."  

>Now granted, the "NEW" Space:1999 was not without its faults. But at least
>it was a little more interesting.  I really happen to think the
>characterizations of the players were better developed in year 2.

I have to disagree - to me, the characters were flatter than pancakes, and
about as stereotypical as you could never wish for. If "characterisation"
means heavy-handed attempts at humour and false character bonding with much
manly punching of shoulders, count me out...

I'm just glad it never got to the stage of Star Trek-style gorgeous female
aliens asking Koenig "Tell me more about this Earth ritual called
'kissing'", because I'm sure that Freiberger was just itching to do it!

Gareth



Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 05:30:35 -0800
From: Amardeep_Chana@xn.xerox4tag.com (Chana,Amardeep)
Subject: Re: Freddy bashing gets us no where.

>You can disagree with the premise that 1999 basically was dead after the
>first season all you want, but the fact remains is that ITC did not decide to
>renew the series for almost a year.

I can and I do.  Fact is, it was resurrected _before_ FF was put in 
 charge.  If someone else was placed at the helm it could have had a 
 chance to succeed.

>It's a sad commentary on fans who lay the blame of a show's demise at the
>feet of one person. There's enough blame to go around, from ITC all the way
>down to Fred and the writers. 

Perhaps I _am_ sad that he ruined my favorite show.  However, you will 
 note that none of the replies to your posts have denegrated your 
 opinion in defense of FF, they only disagreed with it.

At any rate, I am not arguing that there isn't enough blame for the 
 others involved.  I am saying that the largest piece of the blame goes 
 to one person.

>As the
>season one started, the reviews were generally possitive, but as the season
>wore on, the criticisms started to come in. You can start with Asimov and
>work your way down.

I would refer you to reviews of season II.  They did not exactly get 
 glowing praise, either.

>It's easy to lay blame at the feet of one man, but in my opinion, ITC and
>Anderson have to take their share as well. I have not seen either take the
>beating in the fan press as Fred has, and he hasn't said a word to defend
>himself in all of this time.

Yes, it is easy to blame him.  Especially when he made it easy for us.  
 You probably won't see many fans blasting ITC or Anderson because, at 
 least, they did give us one good season up to that point.

This is a debate that will never be won since the topic is highly 
 personal and subjective.  Season I fans will probably view FF as the 
 bad guy and season II fans will likely view him as the hero.  The only 
 consolation I have for what FF did is that there _are_ some people out 
 there who enjoyed the second season... and I'm glad for that.

Amardeep






Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 13:50:52 -0800
From: gwr@easy44net.co.uk (Gareth Randall)
Subject: Re: Balanced view.

>I'd love to see Johnnys postings also was all your information on this
>subject in the Making of 1999 book and the fanderson video, what are your
>other sources, I'm interested in reading up on this.

I've never read the "Making Of..." book; my primary sources are the
"AlphaCon" and "Making Of Space:1999" videos produced by Fanderson. The
latter features brand-new interviews with many of the original cast and crew
(including Landau but excluding Gerry - they reused material from the
interview they shot for "AlphaCon" for his comments). Contrary to the
comment in a previous post, Landau is only too happy to talk about S:1999,
and he's *very* complimentary about the *first* season... =;-)

Gareth 



Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:29:06 -0800
From: "Hugh L. Bassewitz" 

Chalk another one up for Season II superiority.

I have to admit that I was and am totally enthralled by the season II
episodes (Bringers of Wonder is my all-time favorite)..I found episodes from
I to be slow, boring and sometimes just plain strange...oh well..just
cheering for the action adventure crowd.



Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:17:00 -0800
From: michael.mcdonald@stir.ac4tag.uk (Michael Mcdonald {CSMD})
Subject: Season 1/2 Discussion - A Newbie's View

I'm new to this mailing list and have found people's views on which season is 
better really interesting. At last I can air some of my views as no-one I 
know (apart from myself) has actually seen the series this side of 10 years 
old. The satellite TV station BRAVO has just finished the re-run of both 
seasons showing most of the episodes which I have enjoyed but I'm only now 
getting to talk about it. The only person that mentions SPACE now and 
again is my mother-in-law as her uncle was the special effects camera 
operator in season one who sadly now is dead.(Damn!!)

To go back to the season 1/ season 2 discussion, I found the same thoughts 
entering my head about the changes such as the costumes and mission control 
etc. 
I was too young to remeber the diffrence in story quality (althogh I do 
remeber specific things such as the monsters in the Bringers of Wonder etc. 
but I knew that I prefred season 1 to season 2. Now that I've watched it all 
over again I have found that my feelings haven't changed any. Somebody in a 
mail that I read recently said that some of the season 1 episodes were weird.
To me in this round of viewing, it was the abstractness of these programmes 
that appealed most. I felt that the stories (particluarly the first 
few) in season 2 were really weak and even a bit far fetched but I suppose 
that variety is the spice of life.



Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 17:06:08 -0800
From: KERRYIRS@aol4tag.com
Subject: Re: Freddy bashing gets us no where.

When I use the phrase (it's a sad commentary..." it is a figure of speech,
not an attack on anyone or anyone's views. 

What you said about the show being renewed prior to FF arrival flies in the
face of what Fred had to say about that point in his interview back in 1980
with "Starlog" magazine (see issue 40.) All I have to say to people is,
lighten up a bit. The show is 23 years old and nothing will change what has
gone before. 

Opinions are fine and this is what this mailing list is all about, but let's
not get deadly serious about it. Life will go on.

All the best,
Kerry