Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:57:43 -0800
From: Claudia Coles (ccoles@dcez.dcez4tag.com)
Subject: 1999 - "Vision" vs. "History"

Hello Stephen :) ,

On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Stephen M. Arenburg wrote:

> 	I have had the same problem with some crossover stories involving 
> Space 1999 myself.  The other problem is the date (especially since it's 
> 1996 and there's no moonbase!)  I've tried the following:
> 
> 	1. Change the date (also done in one of the "movies").  Call 1999 
> the founding of the space ministry or something.


You know, its interesting to see folks having a problem with the *date* of
Space: 1999 when it comes down to a re-make, continuation of the story,
etc.  However, let's not forget George Orwell's book "1984".  Many things
may not have happened according to the author's predictions by the "date"
of his book, however we still read the book and have no real problem
refering to it in our literary circles and to friends as "1984" [ though I
have to admit he did make us all think, didn't he :) ? ]

I think what we are dealing with here is "vision", not necessarily
"history". George Orwell had a "vision" of what the world should be like
in 1984.  Anderson too had a "vision" so-to-speak, of what the moon would
be like in the year 1999.  And even though we haven't colonized the moon
yet, I still think that a story/movie portraying that aspect "in the past"
is ever much a part of science fiction as something relaying that same
aspect "in the future".  I would not have a problem with a writer today
creating a story, for example, depicting how men underwent space travel to
other galaxies during the 1940s.  As long as the writer justified their
premises within their own stories that would be fine.  Their "literary" 
credibility would rest upon their ability to convince the reader/viewer on
*why* this happened.  "Fiction" would supply the *how*. 

If I'm not mistaken [don't hesitate to correct my failing memory on this
:)] , there was a movie called Capricorn One produced in the 1970's about
how American astronauts *did not* go to the moon - ever.  It was all a
hoax, set up by NASA on a big sound stage.  The hitch however was that the
astronauts were not "in" on NASA's little trick and were almost assasinated
trying to get the truth out to the public [ great movie I might add :) ]. 
This story dealt with something that was said *not to have happened*
during a particular time period, the 1960s, though we all know it did take
place.  However, it was every bit of science fiction and enjoyable :). 

So maybe we should broaden our horizons and expectations when we consider
our beloved show Space: 1999's title.  Though we all know that man will
not have colonized the moon in 3 years, I think we should keep the "vision"
alive and say, as Commander Koenig said on that fateful day in September 
of '99, "...yes...*maybe* there...."  :) .  Peace.

respectfully and cordially submitted,

your fellow Alphan,

Claudia
Communications Officer



Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:31:17 -0800
From: Philippa@sidle.demon4tag.co.uk (Philippa Sidle)
Subject: Re: 1999 - "Vision" vs. "History"

In message <199602270157.RAA19914@quack.kfu.com> Claudia Coles writes:

> You know, its interesting to see folks having a problem with the *date* of
> Space: 1999 when it comes down to a re-make, continuation of the story, etc.

The way I rationalise it when writing fan fiction is simple - from the 60s
onwards, Space: 1999 is clearly set in an alternative history, one where the
space programme zoomed onwards and upwards rather than spluttering to an
apparent halt. And where, on the downside, we had a global and devastating
war in the eighties.

This is a convenient solution. You can keep anything you want the same as in
our timeline, and change anything else to fit in with the Space: 1999 version
of history.

--
Philippa Sidle



Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 14:51:52 -0800
From: Ronald Dudley (dudleyrd@expert.cc.purdue4tag.edu)

>If I'm not mistaken [don't hesitate to correct my failing memory on this
>:)] , there was a movie called Capricorn One produced in the 1970's about
>how American astronauts *did not* go to the moon - ever.

Well Claudia, here's my correction to your failing memory:

Capricorn One was about a faked MARS landing, not a faked MOON landing.
The mistake is easy because the fake Mars lander was identical to the
Apollo moon lander, as was the Saturn V rocket and all the other hardware.
It was not set in the 1960's. 
 
It is notable because it starred wife-beater O.J. SIMPSON as one of the
astronauts NASA was trying to silence!!! 
 
 
Here are some other notable works of scence fiction with out-of-date titles:
(or soon-to-be out-of-date titles)
  
seaQuest 2032
(never saw it, but I heard that this 3rd season was truly awful)
(deja vu: a network makes big changes in a science fiction tv show again!)
 
2001: A Space Odyssey (enuf said)
  
Frankenstine 1970
(Boris Karloff as Dr. F. uses atomic energy in more up-to-date experiments)
(this was a 1950's film)

Deathrace 2000

Sealab 2020 (a cartoon I watched on Saturday mornings as a kid in early 1970's)

I'm sure there are plenty more.  It seems to be a common quick trick to
instantly communicate to the audience that "hey you dullards, this is set in
the future".
  
Lets admit it as to why the year 1999 was picked.  It is alliterative. It has
some variant of "nine" in it 3 times.   That's why the artist formerly known
as Prince did an album/song using it, because of how it sounds.
 
Ronald Dudley