Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:48:38 -0500
From: David Welle (dwelle@itol4tag.com)
Subject: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award [FWD from Robert]

Fowarding this note from Robert.  Wow, here's one "award" I wouldn't want
either.

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  Separated below.]


From: cybrarian@cybrary1999.com Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:12:34 -0600 Subject: Rejected BBC Award Reply-to: cybrarian@cybrary1999.com Hi David: I've just rejected an award for the Cybrary from the BBC. Please forward the following. I thought it might be interesting to people to get an insight into corporate think around Space: 1999. They told me the site won an award but after reading all their rules I was left with the impression I'd really won the right to perform a service for them (exactly as they told me to, or else). Rather than feel flattered I was left feeling repeatedly insulted. Robert ___________________ From: "webguide" To: Subject: Congratulations! Your Website is One to Watch! Date sent: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 17:29:56 +0100 > Beeb is the commercial side of the BBC on the web, one of the > biggest websites in the UK. > > We produce several unique webzines including BBC RTguide, a divison > of the Radio Times, which has carefully selected you as a > One-to-Watch website. > > In recognition of this you can display the One to Watch award logo > (attached to this e-mail) for a limited period subject to the terms > and conditions below. > > Please link the image http://www.beeb.com/. A review of your > website will appear periodically at > http://www.rtguide.beeb.com/webguide/. > > BBC Worldwide Limited grants permission to publish the One-to-Watch > icon on http://www.cybrary1999.com/awards.htm subject to the > following conditions: > > the icon shall appear on your site for three months commencing 9th > September 1998. > > the use of the icon shall be limited only to the identified > website and next to the defined content as outlined above. > > the icon shall not be changed, altered in any way whatsoever. > > the icon shall click through to the homepage of the beeb site or > any other destination named by the beeb representative. > > the icon shall not be used for any publicity or marketing purposes > unless otherwise agreed in writing by beeb. > > beeb shall not be held responsible for any legal actions arising > from content within your service. > > beeb reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time. From: Self To: "webguide" Subject: Re: Congratulations! Your Website is One to Watch! Send reply to: cybrarian@cybrary1999.com Date sent: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:52:52 -0600 Thanks for the recognition, but I think I'll pass on adding this award to my web site. You might be interested in hearing why. First of all, did I win it or didn't I? Imagine an actor who wins an Oscar but is then told they have to return it in 90 days. Did they win it in that case? Seems not. Second, the Awards page at my site is a record of awards the site has won (nine to date, ten with yours [so in three months it reverts to nine again, like it never happened, right?]). What's the point? I've never been much into revisionist history, nor do I like control freaks presenting me with a lengthy list of EXACTLY how and where I should present an award on my own site. You made me feel like I was supposed to be performing a service for you rather than like I won something. You can keep your "award." Third, I went to your site and tried to see the review you wrote, but I couldn't even get the pages to load and never did have any clear sense of where I should be looking. Your web site seems -- like most things touched by software programmers -- to be designed from the creator's point of view rather than the end user's. Why would you want to put people through this aggravation? I'm not talking about a minute or two of waiting for the page to load, but more like five minutes or more, even though I'm on the fastest connection available. What's someone with a 28.8 or slower connection going to go through? Who is being served by this? It's fun to design pages with all the bells and whistles, I'm sure, but I think you should remember that the reason you're designing these pages is for the end user. Maybe I should be reviewing your site instead of you reviewing mine. If I know my review is at your site and even I can't find it, I can't imagine anyone else is going to somehow stumble across it. After OVER five minutes of waiting, a web search at your site for "Space 1999" finally found the following: "Space: 1999 Cybrary An enormous resource for fans of Gerry Anderson's cult science fiction masterpiece, first unleashed on the world in 1975. Relive your favourite episodes from the two 24-episode series which, despite enormous budgets, managed to make Dr Who look like a Spielberg production." Thanks. I think the only thing you said about the site in your review is that it's "enormous." While I find constructive criticism stimulating and thought provoking, I don't appreciate the last comment in your review (and yes, I understand that it's directed at the show rather than specifically to my site). This is but a single person's opinion and not very flattering to anyone who might be interested in checking out the site, so again, what's the point of listing it in the first place? The average viewer may never "get" first season Space: 1999, but for those of us who have tired of black and white cookie cutter dramatization and characterization being spoon fed to us, and that assumes the viewer has an IQ in the single digits, Space: 1999 -- flaws and all -- is an enduring, thought provoking, landmark classic that brings us back again and again; and, I'm happy to report, continues to be discovered anew and appreciated for the same reasons by a new generation of viewers. Beyond that, it's a beautifully designed series that has aged hardly at all, and it was ahead of its time in many ways, preceding "Star Wars" with its miniature work and films like Alien with the episode "Dragon's Domain" and others, but most of all it's enduring and original, and not another retread of Star Trek. For the reasons cited above, while I've never rejected an award before, I thank you, but I respectfully decline your award and will not be posting it on my web site. Sincerely, Robert Ruiz Site Administrator Space: 1999 Cybrary
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com) To: "David Welle" (dwelle@itol4tag.com), (space1999@buffnet4.buff44net.net) Cc: (cybrarian@cybrary1999tag.com), (webguide@beeb4tag.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award [FWD from Robert] Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:29:19 -0500 Right On! Could not have improved upon that one bit, very well put Robert! Its people like that guy, who still look at everything in the shadow of trek, that are why we are spoon-fed crapola by the networks and no one wants to do original, thought provoking, creative work anymore. How can he say Dr Who looks like a Spielberg production(what the hell is this guy watching!), when Space:1999 clearly has the superior production values, better than Dr, Who, better than Trek, and at least in the first season, some of the best Sci-Fi writing ever put on film! Space:1999 stands on it own merits, PERIOD! I think we ALL should drop this pinhead a line or two. -Mark
From: David Acheson (dkach@hot44mail.com) Subject: Space1999: The Award to the Cybrary Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:29:32 EDT I can't believe it! I am glad Robert Ruiz had the decency to give Beeb (and the BBC) the heave-ho by rejecting the so-called "award" he got from them. What an insult indeed to be awarded the chance to advertise for corporate big brother on their terms and to have them throw retreated negative criticism towards the series that they were awarding him for. I am sure they are back in their office scratching their heads over why someone would actually reject an award! Some people just don't get it. Thanks go to Robert for standing up to this garbage. David Acheson
From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: The Award to the Cybrary Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:04:50 -0500 Hi David, I set my reply to BBC as well, I think EVERYONE should drop them a line. Let's show Robert a little support, eh? Send to this address: webguide@beeb.com Below is Roberts reply to my message. Mark plastic.gravity@newrock.com > I think we ALL should drop this pinhead a line or two. I like that idea. :) Talk about a backhanded compliment. The Reader's Digest version would read: Hi. Congratulations. You won an award -- but only for 90 days, then you have to pretend it never happened. Oh yeah, you also need to read this phone book length list of rules regarding how you can present the award and we'll tell you the EXACT page on YOUR site you can add it too. Don't deviate or else! We wrote a review. Summarized: This show is crap but at least the site's extensive. Fuck them. They can keep their damned award. Robert
From: "Jeff Doyle" (jdoyle@computer44land.net) Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award [FWD from Robert] Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:23:48 -0700 Greetings Alphans, I think it is plain that the folks at the BBC website simply have not even seen our favorite show. They are simply going by 23 year old prejudice; when 1999 came out in the mid-seventies it was far ahead of its time. It was compared mercelessly with the origional Star Trek, and was found wanting; largely because it was not Trek. As a result, any defect in 1999 became to many Trekkies (most sci-fi fans of the time were Trek nuts) a fatal flaw. Now don't get me wrong, I am a diehard Old Trek fan, but am upset with the "Trek is King and nothing else is good sci-fi, fans" Frankly it was their close-mindedness that killed 1999. ST should never have been cancelled so early and definately should have been brought back in the mid-seventies, origional crew, et al. Trekkies of the mid-seventies (as was I) felt betrayed by the non-return of the show - and in doings so turned their wrath against the new substitute. While I loved both shows almost equally, I was certainly in the minority. I feel that if Trek had returned before 1999's premier, 1999 would have survived, because it would not be viewed as the new upstart show. Instead it could have taken a place next to Trek, as Indeed it was more than worthy. I loved 1999, and still do. In many respects it holds up better than old Trek. While some of its special effects look a bit dated by our standards, they were always very creative, and there are still a handful of shots that look super even by today's standards. 1. the destuction of the "bomber" by Alan in War Games. 2. The shot of the Eagle carrying the glider as it enters the atmosphere of the planet in "the Immunity Syndrome." How can that BBC guy even compare this with DR. Who?????????????? Sheer ignorance based on 23 year old prejudice is the only explaination. One of the main things that 1999 was critized for back then was the so-called wooden acting. However, no mention is seemingly ever made of Star Trek: the Pepsi Generation/ Al Gore emulation society in space. By comparison to the Pepsi Gen - 1999's cast is loose and emotive. I feel that, with a little computer touch up of S1999's effects, and proper promotion - 1999 could be the big hit it was always intended it would be. Compared to the garbage that passes for science fiction today, S1999 is a masterpiece of television. -Jeff
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com) Subject: Space1999: Fw: The Cybrary Award Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:25:05 -0500 I hope David doesn't mind, but I'm fowarding this back to the list. Its on-topic, and something we all should read. Mark > From: David Acheson (dkach@hot44mail.com) > Subject: The Cybrary Award > Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 9:50 PM > > Hi Mark: > > I agree fully with you on the point you made about us all writing to > Beeb and voice our complaint against their tactics. It wasn't so much > the negative criticism against 1999 itself but the shameful excuse for > giving Robert the wonderful pleasure to advertise their site while > stabbing him in the back at the same time. Why would someone want to > point to another site that does nothing but bad mouth the very subject > you are dedicating your resources on? > > I wrote both to Robert (to congratulate him for rejecting the award) and > to Beeb (where I voiced my concerns against their tactics). > > David Acheson
From: "Simon Morris" (simes01@global44net.co.uk) Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award [FWD from Robert] Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:18:19 +0100 I think this illustrates just how arrogant the BBC is becoming. Those of us who live in the UK have to pay a licence fee of £100 or so a year to fund this overstaffed and bureaucratic dinosaur. It wants it all ways. It refuses to accept advertising as it believes this will affect its "quality",yet advertises its own products continually. It professes to be a public service but quietly(and agressively) pursues some of the most single minded commercial and marketing activities of any media organization. It constantly tells the British Public(in the face of ever-increasing opposition to its huge costs and wastefulness)that its tv and radiois the highest quality in the world. Well much of it is. But they conveniently forget the ever increasing diet of soap operas,crappy quiz shows, hidden camera shows and "people" shows which are forming an ever larger proportion of their output. The BBC ran a campaign a few months ago to the effect "You Make Us What We Are" (another campaign aimed at getting us to pay our licence fees at a time when they were spending less on production and more and more on senior executive salaries). Thousands of BBC jobs have been shed-many on the production side-whilst the Director General and his cronies get ever-increasing salaries and perks. Programmes are commisioned from independent producers at great cost(though,according to the Beeb,cheaper than if they were done in-house)and while there are nuggets of gold screened as a result,there is a huge amount of crap too. There has been some criticism in the British Press about BBC webpages,which along with all other BBC commercial efforts are solely designed to promote the BBC(NO OTHER REASON). That they have been difficult to access,slow to download,etc etc. I would also agree with Mark that its quite obvious that whoever wrote to Robert Ruiz has never seen SPACE 1999. What we are seeing here is,once again,the British media trying to be clever and write what they think are witty lines without having much regard for accuracy. DR WHO and other BBC productions(witness the recent "Invasion Earth")have never been able to match the sort of effects that were seen in Anderson productions-and BBC SFX staff would(and have)readily admit this. The high production values of SPACE 1999 are a matter of world record,and the ignorance of the person who claims it makes DR WHO look like a Spielberg production shames the BBC. Or is he/she saying that they think they are spending licence payers money on low quality crap? I think their superiors would be interested to hear that...... I shall be copying this to the Beeb. People who put out crap like this ought to be sacked but there's not much chance of that. Thousands who *could*do the job have been fired from the BBC in recent years as part of "savings" and "rationalisation"(doesn't stop the BBC demanding the Government raise the licence fee every year though),and paradoxically its the useless bastards left in a job. Robert Ruiz was right to turn down the "award". In my opinion his reply to them was far too polite. Like I've said recently: "Rule Brittania"? Never in a million years. Simon Morris
From: "Ariana" (ariana@ndirect4tag.co.uk) Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award [FWD from Robert] Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:00:07 +0100 >There has been some criticism in the British Press about BBC webpages,which >along with all other BBC commercial efforts are solely designed to promote >the BBC(NO OTHER REASON). Hehe. You probably don't realise this, but I actually work for the company that makes those Web pages (our own national ICL), and my boyfriend knows some of the people who designed them. Yep. Your average geeks with a "wow! look what we can do" attitude and a desire to make something really flash, regardless of how practical it's going to be. A few months ago, they changed the schedule for Radio 4 LW, which is my mother's only connection, in France, to her homeland. Rather than get my father to painstakingly surf through the Web pages with his dodgy modem, she asked me to check out the schedule, since I have a LAN connection at work (though I sometimes wonder if the Proxy server isn't connected to a 14K modem... but I digress). Well, three weeks later (*litterally*!) I found it... It was like looking for product support on the Microsoft Web site... <g> Enough from me... Emma
From: "Brian Dowling" (brian@hellion.prestel4tag.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:30:03 +0100 Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award Hi folks, Boy has it been busy - 32 messages in one afternoon! I do have one request, however... PLEASE can we drop the Ring Around The Moon thread? We discussed it during the ExE exercise, now we're well past it. Please let's leave this one alone, it's almost getting like spam! Nuff respect to Robert for telling the BBC to go stick their award up their corporate arses! As I read what they sent him, I got really steamed up and very p****d off. There's no way that any sci fi (or, for that matter, anything at all) the BBC produced in what I would call its "classic" period (1953-1989) had anything like the production values Space:1999 had! And that's speaking as someone who is a confirmed Doomwatch, Doctor Who, Quatermass and Blake's 7 fan. How Doctor Who could ever have been compared to a Spielberg production is ludicrous in the extreme and the specimen who made that comment displayed extreme levels of ignorance. > > I think we ALL should drop this pinhead a line or two. Damn right Mark! Simon wrote: > I think this illustrates just how arrogant the BBC is becoming. It professes to be an accountable public service but does not give straight answers to questions from those who fund it - witness the continual refusal of the BBC to tell me exactly what they were doing with Space:1999 as a typical example. Witness also its news channel, available only to cable and satellite viewers, who number some 2 million compared to the 20 plus million others who fund the BBC and do not see it. Not that they're missing much, the whole thing looks like a rush job and is more reminiscent of a 6th form media studies project than a professional news service. > It constantly tells the British Public(in the face of > ever-increasing opposition to its huge costs and wastefulness)that its tv > and radiois the highest quality in the world. Well much of it is. But they > conveniently forget the ever increasing diet of soap operas,crappy quiz > shows, hidden camera shows and "people" shows which are forming an ever > larger proportion of their output. That their televison and radio output is the highest quality in the world may well have been true up to the mid 1980s, but I see very little evidence to back that claim up now. I watch very little of BBC1 or BBC2 regularly, apart from one hour on Mondays. The rest is mostly cable channels. Occasionally there are good documentaries, most often co- productions with US or Australian tv stations, but rarely is there something which matches the peaks from the 1970s. Programmes are commisioned from > independent producers at great cost(though,according to the Beeb,cheaper > than if they were done in-house)and while there are nuggets of gold > screened as a result,there is a huge amount of crap too. I struggle to remember recent BBC programmes where I've been impressed with the quality of the programme. The documentary Plague Wars was good, a co-production if I remember rightly, but aside from that I have seen little to impress me. Oh, how I do yearn for the days where I read my TV Times and thought "I must watch that!"... As far as the BBC's pathetic attempts to justify its existence and licence fee go, what a miserably transparent effort to convince the people of the UK to continue funding it. If you buy a dodgy product you can take it back and get a refund or replacement. Not with the BBC, however. There was another campaign where the BBC claimed to be passionate about whatever the viewer was passionate about, and that you could indulge your passions through its programmes. What complete bollocks! My passions include gothic... no, better keep that one off-list... :-) Two of my passions: rock music - the BBC does not have a rock music show on its radio stations, and hasn't for a few years now. In the years preceding, it scaled down the rock content to the point where one hour a week was all we got. Rock music on tv? The Old Grey Whistle Test was one of the best music showcases ever, and that got canned with no replacement. Science fiction: Thorny subject at the BBC, this one. TV60 was a "celebration" of the BBC's 60th anniversary. Doctor Who had not been made for 7 years or so. What won the vote as the best series ever made by the BBC? Doctor Who. How can you ignore such a massive mandate as that? If you've got your head embedded firmly up your ass then you can, appears to be the BBC's answer. There's The X-Files and assorted Trek, if you want to wait until Sky have finished with them. But no decent home made product since 1989! Yet the BBC continue to exploit the Doctor Who name with crap like "Destiny of the Doctors" (Hell, Destiny of the Daleks was better, and that was bad enough!) and the dire tv movie which even Paul McGann couldn't save. How can they be passionate about things which they have turned their backs on? Oh-oh, I'm getting near rant mode... you see my point, though? > There has been some criticism in the British Press about BBC > webpages,which along with all other BBC commercial efforts are solely > designed to promote the BBC(NO OTHER REASON). That they have been > difficult to access,slow to download,etc etc. The BBC website sucks. Period. The charges for a banner ad on their site are ludicrous. I don't recall the exact figure offhand, but when I heard it, I almost choked on my lunch. It's a major work of self- glorification which wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't used licence fee payers' money on it. > I would also agree with Mark > that its quite obvious that whoever wrote to Robert Ruiz has never seen > SPACE 1999. So much for excellence of journalism and research. > What we are seeing here is,once again,the British media trying to be > clever and write what they think are witty lines without > having much regard for accuracy. The words "clever" and "British media" can never go together. > Or is he/she saying that they think they > are spending licence payers money on low quality crap? I think their > superiors would be interested to hear that...... Low quallity crap? Looks like we're talking Neighbours, folks. The BBC SFX crews (I remember Mat Irvine saying something about the sets and FX on B7 which made me laugh.. I was 8 years old at the time) have always said that non-BBC productions do tend to be significantly better in the FX department. Robert Ruiz was right to turn down > the "award". In my opinion his reply to them was far too polite. > > Like I've said recently: "Rule Brittania"? Never in a million years. Over the last few months how many times have I agreed with you Simon? What else can I say apart from a resounding HEAR HEAR! By way of an aside to this, if you think I've got it in for the BBC then you're most likely right. I staunchly believe that the Royal Charter (piece of legislation which forces each home to pay annually a tax of 100 quid to the BBC) should be revoked and the BBC forced to compete in the real world. Watch out for a link to the Argument for Licence Fee Abolition on the UKVL soon. It's interesting to see how well channels like UK Gold and Granada Plus are doing by showing a lot of the stuff the likes of the BBC refuse to make any more. Rant over. Hang on... A reminder - can we *please* drop the Ring Around The Moon thing? I didn't think too hihgly of it before it became a regular thing here, but now I am getting to hate the story completely. Flogging a dead horse is a serious understatement here - please finish it now! Now rant over.
From: "Simon Morris" (simes01@global44net.co.uk) Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:17:52 +0100 Ref the BBC,Brian wrote: >It professes to be an accountable public service but does not give straight >answers to questions from those who fund it - witness the continual >refusal of the BBC to tell me exactly what they were doing with >Space:1999 as a typical example. Too right. When there was some doubt as to what the BBC were going to do with SPACE 1999,I emailed the appropriate department via the BBC website expressing my annoyance at this and also at the way UFO had been dumped from the schedules without warning or explanation. The BBC say that one of the reasons for their website is so that they are in touch with their licence payers. Hah. I never had the courtesy of a reply,let alone an explanation. >That their televison and radio output is the highest quality in the world >may well have been true up to the mid 1980s, but I see very little >evidence to back that claim up now. Yeah. British TV used to be fantastic years ago. I think this is because there was less of it then. What with 24 hour tv,increased commercialism and the need by BBC and ITV to "make a profit",there's less risk-taking now and they pander to the lowest common denominator. Millions watch soap operas(partly coz theres nothing else to watch). Lets make more soap operas. They're cheap. They're safe. They get ratings. etc etc Of course they get ratings. There's nothing else to watch-Its a vicious circle! >I struggle to remember recent BBC programmes where I've been >impressed with the quality of the programme. The documentary Plague >Wars was good, a co-production if I remember rightly, but aside from that >I have seen little to impress me. Oh, how I do yearn for the days where I >read my TV Times and thought "I must watch that!"... (Simon nods sadly in agreement.........) >There was another campaign where the BBC claimed to be passionate >about whatever the viewer was passionate about, and that you could >indulge your passions through its programmes. What complete bollocks! Well,what they meant was that the BBC would be passionate about what their viewers were passionate about.......AS LONG AS it was what the BBC *wanted* to be passionate about. So despite the uproar about BLAKES 7 finishing(and the way it finished):the BBC ignored all protests. Same about DR WHO I suppose..... >The BBC website sucks. Period. The charges for a banner ad on their >site are ludicrous. I don't recall the exact figure offhand, but when I >heard it, I almost choked on my lunch. It's a major work of self- >glorification which wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't used licence fee >payers' money on it. Indeed. And this is why the BBC "award" to the Cybrary was an insult to Robert Ruiz and to SPACE 1999. Merely a sleazy and underhand commercial rip-off. >By way of an aside to this, if you think I've got it in for the BBC then >you're most likely right. I staunchly believe that the Royal Charter (piece >of legislation which forces each home to pay annually a tax of 100 quid to >the BBC) should be revoked and the BBC forced to compete in the real >world. Watch out for a link to the Argument for Licence Fee Abolition on >the UKVL soon. Well I have to say that I also have a vested interest here. I object to paying the licence fee for the crap that's being served up and for subsidising BBC Worldwide's commercial activities. Simon