From: "Willey, Martin J" (martin.willey@eds4tag.com) Subject: Space1999: BBC web site Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 11:08:32 +0100 The BBC web site now has a section on Space: 1999, with a description of last Monday's episode, MoLaD. It's at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/1999.shtml. There are also a links page, http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/links/1999.shtml, listing several sites. There is a nice write up of David Welle's Metaforms. It doesn't mention the Cybrary or the Cyber Museum. For UK Alphans, look out for a not very kind review in Cult TV number 11, the latest issue. SFX magazine also has a review, and is actually quite favourable, describing it in terms of "arc" and "non-arc" episodes. Martin
From: Petter Ogland (petter-ogland@dnmi.no) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 11:00:29 +0000 Subject: Re: Space1999: BBC web site > The BBC web site now has a section on Space: 1999, with a description of > last Monday's episode, MoLaD. > It's at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/1999.shtml. And it's rather good too! In fact, probably the best description of MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH that I've read so far, insightful, personal and witty. Too bad the writer hasn't been credited. > There is a nice write up of David Welle's Metaforms. It doesn't mention > the Cybrary or the Cyber Museum. Here's what it says about the Metaforms: http://www.gbonline.com/~dwelle/s19.html You name it, it's here! From an episode guide made up from fans' comments to pointers towards places to buy merchandise, every taste is catered for. There's no shortage of fans ready to offer analysis, comment and advice on everything Space 1999 related, no matter how trivial. Be ready for anything when you enter this site. The fans have it! No matter how trivial! I liked that. By the way, this is the first outside reference I've heard of to this group. > SFX magazine also has a review, and is actually quite favourable, > describing it in terms of "arc" and "non-arc" episodes. You couldn't elaborate on what is ment by "arc" and "non-arc", Martin?
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Reviews of the Cyber Museum, Cybrary, and three other sites have been added.]
From: "Willey, Martin J" (martin-willey@eds.com) Subject: RE: Space1999: BBC web site Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:22:15 +0100 The arc, according to the writer, were the metaphysical episodes such as Black Sun, Collision Course etc leading up to Testament Of Arkadia, which incrementally built up a story about the destiny of man and man's place in the cosmos. Earthbound and Troubled Spirit were examples of stand-alone non-arc episodes, which also received praise. If I get a chance I'll post some quotes over the weekend. Martin
From: Petter Ogland (petter-ogland@dnmi.no) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:23:08 +0000 Subject: Re: Space1999: BBC web site Personally I see nothing incrementally about the series nor anything building up to THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA, but, nevertheless, I see what you mean. If one believes that there is something common in all the episodes handling metaphysical aspects, not minding different writers and different directors who apparently had wildly different views, I suppose one could end up with Johnny Byrne's philosophy of life and new beginnings as carried out in THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA. Some like to watch the seris like that, I suppose, and, while obviously not indended that way, it could made some sense perhaps as there were some constant factors behind the scenes too, the Andersons, Byrne, Penfold, Wilson and Johnson. If one were to look at it from this perspective, I believe DRAGON'S DOMAIN would also be a sort of terminal point along the road, perhaps summing up the Penfold perspectives on the show in the same manner as TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA sums up the Byrne perspectives. Instinctively I feel SPACE BRAIN seem to sum up Penfold much better than DRAGON'S DOMAIN, but, then again, there are mythological aspects of the pen-ultimate episode and the talk about finding meaning to a mythology in its epilogue that could perhaps be viewed as a point for describing the philosophy of Penfold in the context of SPACE:1999. Another interesting aspect of DRAGON'S DOMAIN is, of course, the change in style both in terms of characteristation and visuals. Even though it spends much time on dealing with conflicts prior to BREAKAWAY, the way these sequences are treated seem to point much more forward than backwards I feel. Of course Penfold had left the set long before DRAGON'S DOMAIN was put into production, and his departure could perhaps explain some of the oddities. On the other hand, Byrne was still around, unless he was too busy with THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA and left much of DRAGON'S DOMAIN for the actors to improvise. > Earthbound and Troubled Spirit were examples of > stand-alone non-arc episodes, which also received praise. There does not seem to be much leading up to Arkadia in these two. From my point of view none of the Terpiloff episodes seem to lead in that direction, COLLISION COURSE no more than EARTHBOUND. All the Terpiloff episodes seem to give a little bit insight into John Koenig, though. I don't know if Anthony Terpiloff grew up in Brooklyn, he probably didn't, but as an American he seems to have been quite apt at understanding the basic intricacies of Koenig, while on the other hand making minimal use of Helena and Victor. Victor is the one who suffer the most in the Terpiloff episodes, I feel, but as Penfold says, Victor was the typical British character, and it would perhaps be to expect too much of Terpiloff that he would try to make too much sense out of him. Come to think of it, in COLLISION COURSE Victor comes a long quite good, but so does Helean and Alan, so this is a very untypical Terpiloff episode in that way. On the other hand, the portrayal of John Koenig seems razor sharp in episodes like COLLISION COURSE and EARTHBOUND. In COLLISION COURSE he appears to be mostly confused, and Landau get the opportunity to express a wide range of emotions like fear, confusion and even makes Koenig cry during the opening sequence. Personally I found the crying scene a bit like Barbara's intro in BREAKAWAY, more a presentation of Landau's admittingly impressive control of emotions than something to do with the story. On the other hand, if one were to have such a scene in one of the episodes, COLLISION COURSE would problably be the most natural to chose because of its deep focus on Koenig's emotional life. While lack a sense of psychology in most of the characters in EARTHBOUND, Landau is once again marvellous as Koenig, and the way he constantly rejects Simmonds adds to the picture of Koenig as a sort of person who is not willing to take orders by anybody. Interesting aspect, this. Simmonds probably thought Koenig would make a perfect match for solving the early problems of the BREAKAWAY episode, thinking of Koenig's pragmatic way of handling things, but obviously realised that Koenig was impossible to cooperate with unless he accepted being underdog. Simmonds being Koenigs superior this would make very little sense, hence the battle for power.
From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: BBC web site Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 6:30 PM Reading about this arc stuff is funny, because no-one EVER used this term for TeeVee shows before B5 came along. I'd bet the reveiwer is a B5 fan. Not that this is a bad thing, Space:1999 being in the same company as B5 is definately a favourable comparison. Mark
From: Ariana (ariana6@usa4tag.net) Subject: Fandersons on the BBC Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 22:09:25 +0100 I haven't checked my mail yet, so I don't if anyone in ".co.uk" mentioned this or not, but the BBC had a very short feature on the Fandersons on Friday. This was part of a series called "Lost in Space", about scifi fans. They just *mentioned* Space:1999 in passing (and showed one short shot of Koenig walking down a corridor accompanied by someone in a purple wig). Most of the show (which was only about 15 minutes) was dedicated to the Thunderbirds, though they did talk briefly about UFO as well. Just thought I would share that with everyone... :) Emma
From: "Willey, Martin J" (martin-willey@eds.com) Subject: Space1999: BBC Web site Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:51:45 +0100 The BBC web site now has a review of Black Sun, tonight's episode. On their homepage, http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/today/, it's one of today's television highlights (with the Simpsons and Top Gear). There is also part 1 of a Gerry Anderson interview on their site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/interview/index.shtml (nothing on 1999, though). If you still want to read the Matter Of Life & Death review, I copied the page onto my website, http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8722/ on the extras section. The reviews by SFX and Cult TV magazines are there as well. Martin
From: "Robert Ashley Ruiz" (cybrarian@cybrary--1999.com) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:24:28 +0000 Subject: Space1999: Lax Writing Did you catch the BBC's description of Black Sun? How do these synopsis writers get their jobs? I wish I had a job where I could be that wrong, put it out there for the world to see, and still have my job to come back to. Space: 1999: The Black Sun 6.20 - 7.15pm BBC-2 A new menace threatens Moonbase personnel as they find themselves on a collision course with an asteroid that suddenly, ominously, burns itself out and dissolves into a thick mass of gaseous substance. Robert Ruiz
From: "Atomic Possum" (atomicpossum@toast4tag.net) Subject: Re: Space1999: Lax Writing Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:53:45 -0500 Gad--Does the BBC do drug testing???? I can't think of anything remotely close to that in 1999. And note the running time: 55 minutes? Is this an error, or do they figure running times differently there? I don't think 55 minutes is the American TV version, is it? ----------------- Jon "Mr. Wonderful" Stadter FREE COMICS FROM: http://www.toon-up.com
From: MikeCombs@aol4tag.com Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:25:17 EDT Subject: Re: Space1999: Lax Writing I think they got "The Black Sun" confused with "Space Brain". Not that they didn't get Space Brain all mixed up as well... Regards, Mike Combs
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@newrock1021.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: Lax Writing Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 12:17:28 -0500
From: David Welle (dwelle@online-dct.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: Lax Writing Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 4:58 PM Hey, Mark, taking the subject a little too literally now? Lax writing = lacks writing? :-)
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@newrock0112.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: Lax Writing Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 05:51:53 -0500 I was replying with same amount of useful content that was in the BBC review. Virtually nothing. Actually, its been a recurring problem with my mail server. Ive been patient with my ISP, and tommorrow they are installing a new mail server, which should solve the problem I'll repost the original reply. Mark
From: "Ariana" (ariana@ndirect-co.uk) Subject: Re: Space1999: Lax Writing Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 15:21:09 +0100 >And note the running time: 55 minutes? Is this an error, or do they >figure running times differently there? I don't think 55 minutes is the >American TV version, is it? I can't speak for the Amerian TV version, but the Space:1999 episodes seem to run at about 50 minutes each here. It's one of the first things I noticed when I started watching Space:1999's rerun a few weeks ago. Those extra minutes allow them to dwell a lot longer on things than 40-minute shows like Star Trek (which is spun out to 1 hour by ads in the States). It's one of the things I really appreciated in "Black Sun", which aired yesterday. They had plenty of time for "unessential" scenes like Bergman and Koenig telling Russell that their little stunt under the forcefield proved nothing and was for "morale" (my boyfriend was especially impressed with this!). Emma
From: South Central (Tamazunchale@web42tv.net) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:46:19 -0700 Subject: Space1999: BBC description of Black Sun That description--I forget the words--is actually fairly accurate. It is a fairly accurate description of the teaser. Look closely. An asteroid is on a collision course with Alpha. They have no time to react. It comes (ridiculously) close to Alpha and then is pulled away by the gravity effects of....(a black hole). What happens to the asteroid, it wobbles and it's image blurs until it finally breaks up in a splash of sparks and then disappears. Compare this with the description offered. Granted whoever wrote it only watched the first three minutes and missed the whole POINT of the episode (as well as the main dilemma of facing imminent destruction as the moon approaches a black hole)! But to say that NOTHING like that happens ever in the whole series shows that some of US haven't been paying attention either. Mateo (who runs away very, very quickly)
From: South Central (Tamazunchale@web43tv.net) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:50:17 -0700 Subject: Space1999: BBC description of The Black Sun Oh yeah, add to my last post: :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Also my written description would have included this graphic: o ------------->O or: o) ------------->O (when the Bergman force field is on, of course. Mateo
From: relax@video44tron.ca Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 17:53:32 -0400 Subject: Space1999: Black Sun Hi All ! I'm watching the BLACK SUN episode at this moment on Canal D in Quebec, and the description in my TV guide is very close to the one wrote in the UK this week. "La base Alpha risque d'etre detruite lors d'une collision avec un asteroide." Translated from French : "The Alpha base could be destroyed in a collision with an asteroid" Seems that ITC gave the same description of each episodes to all the broadcasters all around the world. A very poor description for a so great episode. Andre Beauchamp
From: Petter Ogland (petter-ogland@dnmi.no) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 09:04:05 +0000 Subject: Re: Space1999: BBC description of Black Sun I also wondered what was wrong with the BBC description. To me it seemed very good indeed, not revealing too much of the actual story but still teasing enough in order to provoke interest. To me this would have been a very good introduction to the episode back in 1975 when I first viewed it. I assume the snippet was based on the longer BBC cult TV description which I also found very good. It is accessable from Martin's web site along with the very good description of MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH from last week. In the BLACK SUN commentary, the author has focused on elements of sarcasm used in this episode. Although I didn't experience the quotes as sarcams, for instance the communication between Helena and Sandra in the rescue eagle, the sequence is very good and definitely open to discussion, I feel. My impression is that Helena seems too confused at trying to mother Sandra in order to generate witty dialogue, and she does not seem to be the kind of person who is particulary witty anyway, at least not until the awful redefinition of her character in DRAGON'S DOMAIN and Year Two which makes her more vulgar than witty, I would say. Yuck! I suppose the writer of the BBC commentary was thinking of Sandra's response to Helena, having a fear of doctors as a child, as to be read as sarcasm. Nevertheless, as I didn't feel Sandra was exposing too much bitterness by this ironic remark, I'm not sure I would term it sarcasm. From my point of view it seemed more like she was dodgeing the embarrasing and general awfulness of the situation by making a humorous comment. In general I think the BBC comments I've read so far are very good, seeming to catch the general feel and point of the series. Under any circumstances are they better than the articles in SFX magazine, number 39, June 1998 and Cult TV number 11, June 1998, both to be found also on Martin's site. The SFX magazine in particular goes straight onto the wrong track, at least from my point of view, focusing on non-1999 terms like the Mysterious Unknown Force (MUF), arc and non-arc episodes as to find a deeper meaning to the series apparently with no understanding of the manner of which the series was constructed and no reference to it's writers. The writer of the article explains that he feels Year Two is hotch-potch and the episodes of Year One vary significantly in quality. While I find it hard to argue on that, he even consider some of the Year One episodes to be some of the best science fiction ever to have hit the small screen, I almost get the impression that he is watching a different show. It is almost as if the writer is viewing SPACE:1999 as a cross between STAR TREK and X-FILES or at least STAR TREK with metaphysics. By this he seem to be completly missing out 2001 being the model on which SPACE:1999 was made. The Cult TV article is much better in this respect, I feel. The author of this article feels, however, that SPACE:1999 focused on all the things that were wrong with 2001 and hence makes disasterously bad television. The writer gives a long list of what he feels is specifically wrong with the series, including plot, characterisation, morale, lack of action and more. Personally I never felt there was anything particularily wrong with 2001, and I have always been feeling that the way SPACE:1999 focused on many of the interesting aspects of 2001 is one of the major reasons for why I like it so immensly. I feel, however, the Cult TV article gives a much deeper understanding of the series than the SFX magazine, although I feel the complete opposite of every point he makes. The list Hickson of Cult TV makes of bad points in the series is more or less the same list I would use in order to communicate its good points. Petter
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@newrock2110.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: BBC description of Black Sun Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:08:14 -0500 > at least not until the > awful redefinition of her character in DRAGON'S DOMAIN and Year Two which > makes her more vulgar than witty, I would say. Yuck! Vulgar? Where do you get this from? > In general I think the BBC comments I've read so far are very good, They are awful, and its a good thing the reveiwer is not a screenwriter, because this guy can make anything sound dull. > seeming to catch the general feel and point of the series. Under any > circumstances are they better than the articles in SFX magazine, number > 39, June 1998 and Cult TV number 11, June 1998, both to be found also > on Martin's site. The Cult TV review was harsh, stupid, and cleary written from the standpoint of someone who played the Trek vs. 1999 game in the grade school playground. I found it very annoying, and clearly one sided. > The SFX magazine in particular goes straight onto the wrong track, at > least from my point of view, focusing on non-1999 terms like the > Mysterious Unknown Force (MUF) Non-1999 terms? Think of anything else other than perhaps Eagles that are so well known as Space:1999esque? > arc and non-arc episodes as to find a The Babylon Effect. Its sweeping the Island if you ask me. > deeper meaning to the series apparently with no understanding of the > manner of which the series was constructed and no reference to it's writers. No, aside from the gaffer about the "arc" he's doing OK. I think youre just miffed he didn't mention "ring around the moon" and go on and on about the director....... > he even consider some of the Year One episodes to > be some of the best science fiction ever to have hit the small screen, I > almost get the impression that he is watching a different show. How so? I'd agree that a few of the S1 episodes are definately some of the finest Sci-Fi ever to hit the TV. I often feel that you are watching a different show, Peter. Or maybe just the same episode too much. > It is almost as if the writer is viewing SPACE:1999 as a cross between > STAR TREK and X-FILES I think the comparison to the X-files is valid. S1 of 1999 has a lot in common with the X-files first season in terms of style and mood. 3 years ago when I first joined this list, I made the same comparison. Its still Valid. > missing out 2001 being the model on which SPACE:1999 was made. I'd agree a little on this point. However, given this guy's love of the "arc" idea, I think its similair to how here in the US, Star Trek is the baseline, and everything else is compared in terms of Star Trek. I get the impression that in the UK its Babylon 5 thats currently the highwater mark. > The Cult TV article is much better in this respect, I feel. Peter, in case you missed it, the Cult TV review slammed 1999 for being so "un Trek". He made it seem somehow a freakshow, telling the reader you should watch it just for its plain wrongness. I've always considered 1999 to be unique, but definately not a "freak". The SFX review was what I would show to ANYONE curious about why I like space:1999. He makes a few mistakes, but his overall article is favorable and honest. Mark
From: "Petter Ogland" (petter-ogland@dnmi.no) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:18:04 +0000 Subject: Re: Space1999: BBC description of Black Sun > They are awful, and its a good thing the reveiwer is not a screenwriter, > because this guy can make anything sound dull. Quite to the contrarty, I felt the comments on MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH and BLACK SUN were both exceptionally well written. In just under half a page on MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH he made a number of interesting observations, like the non-symphonic musical theme used during Lee Russell's escape, the influence from STAR TREK (probably due to Art Wallace) on this particular episode, witty comments on Helena's display of emotions and nice comments on 70s technology used for predicting the 90s. Very good, I would say. The article on BLACK SUN was less insightful, I feel, but still very readable, very personal and charming I found it. Here he pointed out use of sarcasm used in the episode, not something I found very much of in this episode, but, nevertheless, nice points made. He also made benevolent fun out of how the sequence where John and Victor grow old and speak to the voice of cosmic intelligence, saying how typical early 1970s the effects were in this sequence. Charmingly early 1970s, I would say. I would perhaps prefer having avoided the extreme makeup in these sequences, it looks painfully unpleasant for Morse and Landau and makes it impossible to use the face to communicate the situation, but the music, the folio, the lights etc were excellent, I feel. The BBC writer seemed to have been caught in a mood of nostalgia, much like I do as well, watching some of the best episodes. I haven't read how he felt about BREAKAWAY, but hopefully he will write something of RING AROUND THE MOON next week, the fourth and, in my opinion, the best of these early episodes. The reviews in SFX magazine and Cult TV were both significantly less successful at describing the series, I feel, much less successful than the BBC report anyway. > The Cult TV review was harsh, stupid, and cleary written from the > standpoint of someone who played the Trek vs. 1999 game in the grade school > playground. I found it very annoying, and clearly one sided. I felt differently here. While the reviewer obviously didn't enjoy SPACE:1999 very much, he made the vital link with 2001. As SPACE:1999 perhaps can be viewed as a list of footnotes to 2001 in some ways, both in form and content, I fully accepted him not liking the series as the points he made made it so obvious why I like it so much. His immediate assosiation with 2001 was a very positive thing about the article. He then commented on the impressive visuals, interior and exterior, and "Plenty of impressive tracking shots, huge close ups..." I certainly agree to this. As he may be a fan of STAR TREK, which does not seem to unreasonable as you point out yourself, one could hardly expect him to appreaciate the psychological and philosophical aspects of the series, and even less to enjoy the subtle style of acting. As he says, quite much to my liking, SPACE:1999 was the anti-thesis of START TREK. That he wanted more pointless running around, just shows how to the point Fred Freiberger was with his estimating his audience for Year Two, trying to understand Freiberger from a financial point of view, not an artistical. What Hickman means with "exciting running bits, good performances or tight plotting", I assume must be the same as Freiberger's "honest adventure", less "plastic relationships", more "humour" etc, that is making the show more similar to the Hanna Barbera animated series of the Scooby Doo type. Nevertheless, I felt Hickman's Cult TV much more sensible than Brown's SFX magazine comments. > Non-1999 terms? Think of anything else other than perhaps Eagles that are > so well known as Space:1999esque? It makes one wonder, doesn't it? A critic in 1976 applauded the change of style from Year One to Year Two as it finally got rid of the ridiculous Mysterious Unknown Force, apparently a term introduced to explain that he couldn't make heads or tails out of the series and wanted something less demanding. Mysterious unknown force, I ask myself, was there anything like that in SPACE:1999? The term was never used in the series, it seems, and I can't recall having Johnny Byrne or anyone else involved with it say anything about a MUF. There is of course talk of God, of cosmic intelligence, of space brains, of unknown forces and unexplainable phenomena and there is talk about destiny and mythology. This is something completely different, I think. Rather than having the Alphans portrayed as medival knights on a quest for the holy grail with the interactive help of God, the basic premise of BREAKAWAY and following episodes seem to be quite contrary of fable of mankind trying to understand its position in the universe. Who are we? Where are we going? Is there a meaning to it all? On and on, the series seem to pose question upon question of this kind through out the series. Is death the only thing that gives meaning to life? Is there no boundries to what extents we will go in order to maintain life? Why do we survive? Why is there hope? "Why is this happening to us", Sandra asks Victor, and Victor replies: "Perhaps the gods are using us for their sport..." Before you know it, however, people suddenly adapt the MUF as the central concept of Year One, making the series into some sort of quasi-religous parallell of Moses and the begotten land. How far from the original concept of the series can you go, really? Were people so in need of a STAR TREK substitute that they would read anything related to space as STAR TREK? It's beyond me, and even more so when we have an episode like THE LAST SUNSET where Paul is presented as a mad visionary talking about "manna from heaven" and wanting to spread humanity for solar system to solar system. Why wouldn't the Ariels let the Alphans colonise on their planet? The point is made even more clear in WAR GAMES, I feel, where Penfold let the aliens answer this very question by saying that human kind is like a virus that would contaminate the whole planet. Byrne shows a similar philosophical affinity with his IMMUNITY SYNDROM. From my point of view the SPACE:1999 fable seem to be the anti-thesis of STAR TREK, MUFs and arcs/non-arcs, in the same way that 2001 is an anti-thesis of those phenomena. > No, aside from the gaffer about the "arc" he's doing OK. I think youre > just miffed he didn't mention "ring around the moon" and go on and on about > the director....... RING AROUND THE MOON, yes, thats's a good story, and a very good example of how SPACE:1999 made creative use of the 2001 concept into making sensible television, I feel. Far from being an arc-story, a story that apparently leads up to THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA, to me RING AROUND THE MOON is the high mark of SPACE:1999, an episode that tries to focus on human awareness and inner issues. When this episodes makes comments of the essence of knowledge in Victor's comment at the end of the episode, probably summing it all up, I feel this is as close as SPACE:1999 got to the HAL9000 sequence, or at least its philosophical implications, in 2001. Another very good episode in my opinion, MISSING LINK, which also makes a splendid comment on 2001 by presenting human kind as a missing link between monkeys and machines in the eyes of alien intelligence. Petter
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@new11rock.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: BBC description of Black Sun Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:00:35 -0500 > I felt differently here. While the reviewer obviously didn't enjoy > SPACE:1999 very much, he made the vital link with 2001. Peter, I feel the connection with 2001 isn't that important, and even if it were, he pretty much came out and said the show sucked. For him, it was like watching MSTK3000 > As SPACE:1999 perhaps can be viewed as a list of footnotes > to 2001 in some ways, both in form and content, OK, lets get this straight, you think 1999 is some sort of son of 2001, right. No one will deny the influence on the STYLE and SFX, the content is much differrent. > I fully accepted him not liking the series as the > points he made made it so obvious why I like it so much. I can just see this guy and you in a playground when you were both kids, now granted this is pure satire, but it gets the point accross. You begin by espousing about why you like the "Ring around the Moon" so much. He inturn says its crap, but real wierd crap, so wierd and stupid in fact, that his friends watch it for laughs. You smile and say, "yes, but I really......." and go on about it for another few minutes until he interrupts you with a Jim Kirk smack to the chin. Then he tells you as you sit on the ground rubbing your bleeding lip that its got nothing on Trek, wheres your Klingons, wheres all your other(insert cliche trappings of trek here), Koenigs a wimp, and this is the way James T kirk handles stuff! And then you go in and tell everyone how much you like the guy. What happened out on the playground was great because he made a "connection" and he commented that Space:1999 reminded him of "that old freaky (2001) movie with those apes that I watched at 2 am last nite with my older brother" C'mon, Peter! Get the picture? His review reminded me of the Space$19.99 review from a few years back. I thought that one was pretty condescending also. > As he may be a fan of STAR TREK, As he says, quite much to my liking, > SPACE:1999 was the anti-thesis of START TREK. Yes, you and I are proud of that, but he finds it amusing, just another rung on his Space:1999 freakshow ladder. > That he wanted more pointless running around, just shows how to the point > Fred Freiberger was with his estimating his audience for Year Two, Did this guy review only Y2? No, or he wouldn't have made the connection with 2001, which by the time of S2 is non existent except for the fact that its still called 1999 and the moonbase is still in a crater. He doesn't get it. > What Hickman means with "exciting running bits, good performances or tight > plotting", I assume must be the same as Freiberger's "honest adventure", > less "plastic relationships", more "humour" etc, that is making the > show more similar to the Hanna Barbera animated series of the Scooby Doo type. Youre right there, and its not a positive reflection of the series. > Mysterious Unknown Force, apparently a term introduced to explain that he > couldn't make heads or tails out of the series and wanted something less > demanding. Doesn't matter what its called, the concept is valid, and just because some critic invented the term doesn't mean its not true. The MUF is prevalent in many episodes, and although the producers and writers never called it that, or even referred to it, it existed in the Space:1999 universe. Youre right, that critic needed to back to reading the back of his Lucky Charms box, but he did pick up on a major theme of 1999's first series. > mankind trying to understand its position in the universe. Small, very small. > Who are we? Lost little humans, who get into big trouble, and then get out of it with the help of forces unknown. > Where are we going? Arkadia > Is there a meaning to it all? Ive been making fun of the "arc" comparisons that have been floating around, regarding them as the B5 interpretaion of Space1999, but I just noticed something. The questions you stated: Who are we? Where are we going ? Is there meaning to is all? really reminded me of: Who are you? What do want? What do you have worth living for? Ahhh...what might have been.............I think todays audience would have recieved 1999 much better, and it would enjoy favourable comparisons to both B5 and Trek. > Is death the only thing that gives meaning to > life? Is there no boundries to what extents we will go in order to > maintain life? Why do we survive? Why is there hope? Yes, indeed, those questions are all Space:1999. Peter, just when I'm about to throw in the towl on you and Ring Around the Moon you come up with a real great observation.................... > Before you know it, however, people suddenly adapt the MUF as the central > concept of Year One, making the series into some sort of quasi-religous > parallell of Moses and the begotten land. No, I think its just a way for some people to understand the series at first. Its also partly the B5effect again....... > The point is made even more clear in WAR GAMES, I feel, where Penfold > let the aliens answer this very question by saying that human kind is > like a virus that would contaminate the whole planet. Yes, very unTrek concepts......... > RING AROUND THE MOON, yes, thats's a good story, and a very good > example of how SPACE:1999 made creative use of the 2001 concept into > making sensible television, I feel. I have no comment(I've said it enough) on RAR except to say that its the single worst episode of Space:1999's first season and quite possibly one of the worst scifi outtings ever filmed. > I feel this is as close as SPACE:1999 got to the > HAL9000 sequence, or at least its philosophical implications, in 2001. Pure phooey! > Another very good episode in my opinion, MISSING LINK, which also makes a > splendid comment on 2001 by presenting human kind as a missing link between > monkeys and machines in the eyes of alien intelligence. Maybe you were watching a different episode called Missing Link, Peter, because Raan and his people were very much humanoid, and not at all Cybernetic. As he says, quite much to my liking,