Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 02:26:46
From: David Welle (dwelle@online44.dct.com)
Subject: Space1999: Ratings, ITC, Year 2 Changes, and Freiberger
Cc: philippa@sidle.demon.co.uk

**** Ratings, ITC, Year 2 Changes, and Fred Freiberger
****
**** (Another installment in the " 'Brief' History" series :-)
****

Thanks to Robert, including some information posted at the Cybrary, several
more things have come to light for me; and suddenly, I have a much clearer
understanding of the circumstances surrounding the title subjects.  I
thought I'd share what I now understand of the situations that prompted all
the changes between the first and second seasons of Space: 1999 (which I'll
abbreviate as "S19").

Oddly enough, however, I'm going to start with Star Trek (which I'll refer
to simply as "Trek" from here on).  I do not want to introduce an off-topic
Trek thread; my only intent is to use it as an interesting comparison for
one of my main points (can you guess which one? :-)


One criticism lodged against Trek right from the beginning with the first
(unbroadcast) pilot, "The Cage" was that this new series was "too
cerebral."  Though immediately retooled in an attempt to hide the
"cerebral" aspect without getting rid of it, Roddenberry still wasn't able
to pull in the desired ratings.

Ratings are, of course, crucial to *any* series, and to the networks
broadcasting these series.  In the U.S., for example, high ratings can and
do increase commercial revenue.

NBC nearly canceled Trek after the first season, but stayed its hand when
an unprecedented outpouring of letters arrived.  Unfortunately, its second
season ratings had changed little.  A second attempt to cancel was met with
another barrage of letters, so NBC decided to give it one final go.  This
time, a new producer, Fred Freiberger, was in charge of day-to-day
production, and he made a few changes.

Some may argue, "why meddle with perfection?"  I'm certainly not arguing
Trek was perfect; but the fact is that Trek had always struggled to find an
large enough audience, so it was hopelessly far from "perfect" as far as
the network "illuminati" were concern.  I am not sure if this was exactly
why Freiberger was brought in--did they bring him with that intent, or
simply to replace someone who had already left the show?  Either way,
though, it wouldn't have mattered as much as one might think, because
regardless of the circumstances that brought him to the show, the ratings
were *already* low; and if the ratings are low, some retooling is almost
inevitable, and I have little doubt that as producer, he was charged with
the task of improving the ratings.

Furthermore, you can't improve consistently stagnant ratings by leaving
things just as they were.  You have to make changes.  If that's not
something he already knew, it seems certain the network would have told him
this.

So he made some changes.  This was a gamble, no matter what you try--and
this applies to *any* series, not just S19 or Trek.

In fact, let's try delving into the possible results (for any series, that
is).


If a *small* number of changes are attempted, the following possibilities
exist (somewhat broad or oversimplified, but hopefully demonstrative):

A1)  Most perceived problems are fixed without introducing new ones.  Most
of existing audience remains and an even larger number of new or returning
viewers added and kept.  Strong ratings increase.

A2)  Same, but with relatively few new or returning viewers tune in.
Little change in ratings, or slight increase at best.

A3)  Some or most perceived problems are fixed, but new problems are
introduced.  Most of existing audience kept but some start to flee from
changes.  New/returning viewers tune in, some stay, some leave.  Ratings
change little or decline, depending on how many new problems are introduced.

A4)  Perceived problems not fixed well or made worse, new problems
introduced.  Existing audience starts to leave.  Some new or returning
viewers may appear, but most will leave.  Ratings decline slowly or quickly.


With a *large* number of changes attempted, the possibilities are somewhat
different.

B1)  All or most perceived problems fixed; many other changes made and most
turn out to be improvements or at least neutral (the series is now much
improved or even great by most standards).  Part of existing audience is
alienated anyway and leaves, remainder stay; large new audience, including
some returnees, decides to check it out and hang around.  Ratings improve.

B2)  Same, but doesn't capture as large of a new or returning audience.
Slight ratings improvement, if any (due to losses in existing audience).

B3)  Same, but never captures a new or returning audience due to poor
advertising or an already terrible reputation.  Losses amongst existing
audience mean plummeting ratings.

B4)  Some perceived problems fixed; many other changes, some for better,
some for worst.  Little *overall* quality change.  New/returning audience
appears but only some stay (no more than the *first* time around); much of
existing audience alienated.  Ratings hold, then start to fall.

B5)  Same, but new/returning audience doesn't materialize in sufficient
numbers..  Ratings plummet because of alienation among existing audience.

B6)  Most changes for worst.  New audience doesn't appear or quickly
leaves.  Much of existing audience flees.  Ratings disaster.

So there are a lot of possible results of change.  It is always risky:  you
may fail to get the new audience; you may get the new audience but fail to
keep them; you may alienate the existing audience.  A series can get a name
for itself in the public, and it may stick, good or bad, changes or no
changes.  The public can be extremely fickle, but it can also have a long
memory.

More importantly, notice that few of the above possibilities lead to
ratings increases.  But ratings are ultimately all that a network is
interested in.  This makes change a big risk.  Yet if someone decides the
ratings aren't high enough, changes have to be made in an attempt to "save"
the series.

Now I don't know backstory of Trek as well, but it's apparent the changes
Freiberger made to Trek were nowhere near as sweeping as with S19.  With
Trek, all the major characters remained; the sets, special effects, the
general storytelling framework (starship on five-year journey, strange new
worlds, Federation, Klingons, warp speed, etc.) all stayed pretty much the
same.  There were some changes of emphasis, but I really don't want to
discuss it in any further depth, for I do not want to start a Trek thread.
As far as episode quality, I feel the third season has about the same
number of classic episodes (e.g. "The Enterprise Incident") and clunkers
("Spock's Brain"--although that's become something of a cult classic in its
own way) as the prior two seasons had.

Freiberger had come in with the hopes of improving a series whose ratings
were consistently amongst the lowest around, made some changes, but
ultimately could not save Trek from being put out of its misery in the end.
 After all, it is very hard to improve ratings when the viewership is so
low to start with--how are you going to get good word of mouth when there
aren't that many mouths singing your praises to start with?  And just how
does one go about "improving" a series anyway?  Formulating a new series is
hard enough; but reformulating an existing series seems no less difficult.
Even if it's not a reformulation but rather a "tweaking" such as FF was
limited to in Trek, the results are unpredictable.  Overall, there were
*relatively* few changes of apparently mixed results, something like A2 or
A3 above.  The ratings remained low, and NBC finally did what it had really
wanted to do the past two years:  they canceled Trek.


So fast forward about six years to late 1974 or early 1975.  ITC was
shopping for networks around the world to buy broadcast rights to a series
(S19) which came as an *already completed* package of an entire season's
worth of episodes (talk about taking a risk!).  All three U.S. networks
passed on it, apparently not that impressed with the series, its "cold,
wooden characters," or strange plots they couldn't grasp.  They didn't
believe audiences would connect and didn't think the audience would either.
 Network executives usually don't have the time or interest for in-depth
analysis of subtleties; they can only make snap judgements about how large
of an audience might tune in--and the U.S. networks seemed to feel the
series would bomb.

So lacking the support of the  U.S. television networks, ITC did an
extraordinary job of lining up over 150+ individual stations in the U.S.,
plus some over 100 more around the world.  An admirable job, to say the least.

The problem was that the actual time-slot placement of the series obviously
varied considerably from market to market; but the notoriety of all these
proceedings did not go unnoticed, and a huge audience tuned in to see the
pilot episode, "Breakaway."

Unfortunately, as Robert has mentioned, the ratings plummetted over the
course of the next several episode, only to slowly climb during the balance
of the first season.  That was in general; the specifics got downright
chaotic.  In some markets, it ruled the ratings; but in others, it fared
poorly (e.g. S19 was consistently drubbed by the "Lawrence Welk" show in
Philadelphia, according to an article in the Cybrary [The Washington Post -
January 2, 1976, "1999 Gets Humanized"]).  And in some markets (including
the U.K.?), it was shown at awful times (weekday afternoons or late
nights--this being the days before VCRs), or preempted at whim--even though
other markets were showing the series in prime-time and even preempting
network fare!

It was a messy situation to track, I suppose--yet it became evident that
S19 wasn't faring anywhere near as well as the resounding success ITC had
*expected* it would be.  Though the ratings had been improving after the
early drop-off, it still had something of an uncertain future, and for
quite some time, no one was sure whether a second season would be made, or
what form it would take.  Abe Mandell at ITC New York (the U.S. arm of ITC)
was particularly anxious, and started demanding major changes.  He was one
production partner involved, along with Sir Lew Grade of the U.K. arm of
ITC, the major Italian network Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI), and Gerry
Anderson (he'd broken up with Sylvia Anderson by this time).  (Quite the
crowd...)

S19 had been criticized, from early on--and often since then--about its
"wooden characters," "incomprehensible plots," and "scientific
inaccuracies."  Whether or not those charges are truly justified is a whole
other matter, and not the subject of discussion here anyway.  The problem
was the "low" ratings--ratings that did not match expectations and *had* to
be improved as far as ITC was concerned.  It was that simple to them.  How
to go about it was another matter entirely, of course.

Improvement ratings can only come about if there is some change.  In
general, there are three types of change:  change in time-slot placement,
other stations changing what series are competing in the same time slot, or
change in the nature of the series itself.  The first two (time-slot and
competitors) were, for all intents and purposes, completely outside of
ITC's control (they couldn't do much more than beg stations to improve
S19's time-slot) in this case, given the syndication situation.

So that left only content itself to argue over--and that's what happened.
Much discussion and apparently controversy ensued over what changes to
make.  Major targets were those I mentioned before (characterizations,
plots, inaccuracies).  ITC New York especially wanted to rework the series
so it would have warmer characters and more "adventure-oriented"
plots--things they thought were needed to make it in their market.

I'm not sure whether it was during this phase, but RAI bowed out.  If this
is the case (can someone verify this, and the timing?), this left ITC New
York with even more influence in the proceedings, especially considering
that the United States was a huge fraction of the total market (about half
maybe?).  Eventually, whether this was the reason or not, changes were
finally agreed on, though perhaps not happily amongst some.  Characters
would be made "warmer" and more "human", plots would go from "metaphysical
mumbo-jumbo" to "action adventure," and some more attention would be paid
to accuracy.

Since Sylvia Anderson had broken up with Gerry Anderson, both as wife and
co-producer, this left a vacancy (for co-producer, of course :-), and ITC
had the opportunity to place an American producer into the series, which
made sense considering it was ITC New York who had been the party pushing
for the most changes.  To make sure the desired changes were made, they had
to find someone that would be willing to root out the problems with the old
series and put the new elements in place.

Enter Fred Freiberger into *this* part of the story.  He already had
experience on at least one other science fiction series, so he was a
reasonable candidate to consider.  As far as his being the producer of the
last year of Trek, it wasn't considered as a fault against him because
Trek's ratings problems were well-known (something that tends to be
forgotten nowadays).  Apparently ITC realized, perhaps correctly given the
circumstances, that there was little *anyone* could have done for Trek,
given its already poor ratings when Freiberger had stepped in.

S19 was somewhat different.  It had garnered a lot of attention and even
notoriety, and that lingered, even with the lower than expected ratings.
There was more of a viewer base to work from.  Furthermore, there was now a
mandate in place--even though it was still controversial--to make broad
changes to the series.  Also, Freiberger probably felt Trek would have
succeeded if Roddenberry had been willing to make bolder changes to improve
the ratings.  Freiberger was nothing if not bold--sometimes to the point of
arrogance.  But he seemed to fit ITC's needs, so the job was his.

I have heard conflicting stories about Gerry Anderson's reaction, but it
appears that he distanced himself from the series after Sylvia left and
Freiberger became a producer, perhaps frustrated with ITC's meddling.  If
true, this gave Freiberger even more control.

There was another problem, however.  The ratings situation as a whole, and
the debate about whether and how to continue, delayed the start of
production, and Freiberger was brought into the picture late, so he not
only had to scramble to make the mandated changes *and* still meet
production deadlines for television broadcast, which were basically
constant from year to year.  Besides reducing preparation--both initial and
week-to-week, they ended up having to "double up" several second season
episodes to keep up, which only added to the confusion.  But I'm getting
ahead of myself.

Before Freiberger had even shown up, the known problems, as far as many
parties were concerned, were "wooden characterization" "incomprehensible
plots," and "scientific inaccuracies."  Freiberger was duly instructed to
fix these problems.  He of course listened to the desires of ITC for warmer
characters, action adventure-oriented plots; and he began making changes
accordingly.

Sweeping changes required, well... sweeping changes.  Since one of the
complaints was over characterization, it wasn't much of a stretch to decide
that most of the existing characters--and thus the actors--had to go.  The
cruel if not totally baseless perception was that the old, stodgy, cold
characters might have had a place on a talky, metaphysical mumbo-gumbo of a
show; but not in a more exciting, action-oriented adventure show.  So the
decision seemed simple:  bring in a mostly new crowd of characters and actors.

He had to keep Martin Landau and Barbara Bain as anchors, and may have
realized they had more emotional range than displayed in the first season.
He tried to get rid of everyone else, but was told several of the actors or
characters, especially Nick Tate's Alan Carter, were actually quite popular
(and thus of benefit to the ratings).  So he kept some of the more popular
characters, then tried to rebuild the cast with other "sure-fire"
characters that the audience could relate to better, or find more
fascinating--something that had seemed to be mostly lacking in the first
season.

To this end, he introduced the characters of Tony Verdeschi and Maya
(played by Tony Anholt and Catherine Schell) to fit those bills.  Tony
would be the handsome, dashing, irreverant type that viewers would surely
be able to relate to.  Maya would be a beautiful alien with an unusual
ability to transform herself--a character that ought to fascinate the
audience.  These were to be two characters with palpable warmth, one of the
main ideas of change.

For a further measure of humanity, these two characters, as well as
Landau's and Bain's (John Koenig and Helena Russell) could develop as
romantically-involved couples as the second season progressed--a measure of
warmth that on the surface, seemed entirely absent the first season.

Human "warmth" and relateability could also be brought in through the use
of humor.  After all, characters that rarely laugh or smile, can come off
seeming cold and unfriendly.  Thus Tony was wise-cracking, and Maya was
something of a flirtateous practical joker.  Humor was to be spread amongst
the others as well.  Furthermore, a light-hearted closing scene would
certainly be more satisfying than the "depressing" endings seen in the
first season.

More scientific accuracy, in a science-fictional sense of course, would be
introduced through Maya, who would be given more credibility than the
wishy-washy professor of the first season, who seemed to be generally
clueless to some.

Overall, these characters, with these and other varying roles, were to be
more well-rounded, multi-faceted, than the characters of the first season,
who had been perceived as "wooden" and "one-dimensional."

As far as other changes, Main Mission struck some viewers as too big and
sterile, and was expensive set to maintain, production-wise, so a smaller,
more "intimate" Command Center was created in its place.  The clothes,
well-known designer (Rudi Gernreich) or not, were judged cold, boring, and
unflattering; so in came newer, more colorful, and sexier variations.

Finally--and far from least importantly--the unusual, more "metaphysical"
but "incomprehensible" plots that had apparently been at the root of many
complaints were replaced with more action-adventure type stories to
generate interest and enthusiasm in the viewers.  This of course was one of
the more important demands that had been made on Freiberger to change.


Notice that within the full context already discussed--a backdrop of
sub-par ratings, chaotic scheduling, constant criticism, the resulting
desire among some for extensive changes, the apparent political in-fighting
and chaos that resulted, and the delay in production that *all* of that
caused--neither Freiberger nor his changes seem that terribly out of place.
 In a sense, they were actually reasonable changes within an unreasonable
situation.  After all, the demands had *already* been made *before*
Freiberger was brought on board, and they simply needed a new producer who
would *willingly drive* to make the now-mandated changes.  That is what
Freiberger did.  He was charged with the job of taking those somewhat
general mandates and coming up with specific things to do to flesh out
these changes.  He did that.

So frankly and perhaps unexpectedly, Freiberger does not seem to be the one
at fault for the fact of the changes that were made to S19 between its
first and second season.  The causes of the changes are thus deeply-rooted
and interconnected, stretching essentially back to the production of the
first season.

So who's to blame?  Perhaps the answer is "nobody but everybody."  The
producers for creating a series with the very things that became problems
(real or perceived)?  The actors for their performances?  The networks for
passing something that may have become a total ratings blockbuster if had
only been given a stable home to start with?  Perhaps many of the viewers,
for missing the depth perceived by some that escaped others?  Perhaps Abe
Mandell and ITC New York for insisting on radical changes?  Perhaps
excessive ratings expectations by ITC?

This is not to suggest Freiberger is blameless.  Though the changes were
mandated by others, he was charged with coming up with sure-fire specifics.
 But is there even such a thing as "sure-fire" in the world of television
to start with?  And with a too-short time frame, compressed by the delays
in making decisions on whether and how to proceed, Freiberger had even less
time to work with.  It is difficult enough to produce a weekly television
and put out quality, but imagine having to rush into production, and on top
of that, have to stack episodes to an unnatural degree just to get things
done.

Then, there is another problem.  With a radical number of changes to an
existing series, you inevitably risk alienating your existing audience, and
*must* pull in a large new or returning audience to not only counterbalance
this, but *increase* the ratings, which of course was the original goal in
the first place!  S19 had a fair chance of recapturing a large audience,
for it had gained a lot of notoriety just the year before, still had a
good-sized audience, and potentially could regain the audience that had
checked it out early on and who had left.  After all, the first season was
considered to have many flaws that had apparently chased many viewers away.
 Now, with all the efforts at fixing problems, and otherwise improving the
series, people would return, right?

Well, the changes did attract some public attention, and some did come to
check it out; but the numbers weren't enough, and with the losses amongst
the existing audience, the ratings declined.

It was a gamble.  It did not pay off.  ITC had pushed for significant
changes to fix the perceived problems, but in the end, probably pushed
*too* far, in a sense over-compensating.  So ITC really seemed to have had
unrealistic expectations, both for the first season ratings, and for the
changes.  Perhaps executing half the number of changes would have helped.
An infusion of more humor, romance, a couple new characters such as Tony
and Maya to interact with existing characters, some changes in the story
writing.  Such changes, carefully woven in could have fixed some of the
existing weaknesses and only added more strengths, thus enriching the
series and opening it up for a larger audience--without alienating part of
the existing audience.  Instead, we were left with two rather distinct
seasons, each with their own distinct strengths and weaknesses.  Some fans
prefer the first season, some prefer second, and some enjoy both seasons.


So that leaves but one more question to wrap up this all up.  Was Fred
Freiberger a "Series Killer?"

In my opinion, no.  In "Trek," he was brought into a series that had always
had low ratings, with a network that had already tried to cancel it twice,
and didn't need much more of an excuse to cancel it.  In a sense, Trek was
already doomed.

In S19, he was brought in with the explicit mandate to carry out a set of
changes that ITC had deemed necessary; he did just that, but ITC's
expectations were unrealistic, and apparently blind to the possibility of
alienating much of the audience.  Trapped again, it appears.  I think he
simply tried to do the best he could in two difficult situations.  With
S19, he followed the mandates he had been hired to make happen, and made a
lot of changes that made sense in that context.  Yes, even considering all
this, he made some mistakes of his own too, but in comparison to all of the
factors that were already out of his control, I simply don't believe that
he can be made scapegoat for all the perceived problems of the second season.

****

Whheeew!  Sorry for the length.  I hope it was interesting.

Well, am I way off base, or does some of this make some sense?

Questions?  Comments?  Corrections?  Complaints?


----
David Welle
http://www.dct.com/~dwelle/s19.html



Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:18:17 -0500
From: Andre Beauchamp (relax@videotron44.ca)
Subject: Space1999: Year 2 changes and more...

> Whheeew!  Sorry for the length.  I hope it was interesting.

Ho yes it was !!!

Thank you for sharing all that information.

Andre Beauchamp



Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:35:15 -0600
From: ggreg perry (ggreg@nwu44.edu)
Subject: Space1999: Ratings, ITC, Year 2 Changes, and Freiberger

> they simply needed a new producer who
>would *willingly drive* to make the now-mandated changes.  That is what
>Freiberger did.  He was charged with the job of taking those somewhat
>general mandates and coming up with specific things to do to flesh out
>these changes.  He did that.

yes he did, yes he did.  it is is fault (the blame) because of the way he
went about making these changes.  someone else could have been handed an
identical sent of directives from ITC new york, and while i personally would
still have disagreed strongly with them in the first place, and initiated
them much more intelligently and realistically.


there is no reason to fault the original first series of episodes, since,
while they may have not been perfect, they set the
tone/outlook/mood/style/look of the series.  what you do in this situation
is yes, corrct the weaknesses, but build on the strengths as well, not
abolish them.  again freiburger is at fault for making the SPECIFIC changes
according to his hollywood-used-car-salesman approach to tv producing.

>So who's to blame?  Perhaps the answer is "nobody but everybody."

again, a more talented, thoughtful person could have carried out the ITC
mandates while still maintaining the basic dignity of the series.

>So that leaves but one more question to wrap up this all up.  Was Fred
>Freiberger a "Series Killer?"

hai.  si.  yes.  

the man has no background or interest in SF.  he was hired because he
happened to work on last season trek and was affordable. anybody could have
done the same job. any joe off the streets knew as much generic, hoary, SF
cliches as he did:  spacewarps/talking plants/"weird" aliens and monsters,
brightly colored "futuristic looking" plastic all over the place.  he is and
always will be an untalented tv hack.  look at the couple of episodes he
actually wrote for second season 1999.  i rest my case.  

ggreg

MISERY INDEX COMMAND CENTER
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~ggperry/



Subject: Re: Space1999: Ratings, ITC, Year 2 Changes, and Freiberger
From: djlerda@juno44.com (David J Lerda)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:04:42 EST

Just thought I would add my comments and some histroy for those who
haven't heard it:

After Trek was renewed for its 3rd season (as a result of the
letter-writing campaign), Gene Roddenberry planned to return to the
producer spot  (he had been executive producer).  Trek was supposed to
get Monday night at 7:30.  NBC contacted Roddenberry and told him that
they were moving Trek to Friday nights at 10 pm because Laugh-in wanted
Mondays at 8 and refused to be moved back a half hour.  Since they had
more ratings clout, Trek lost that battle.  Once this was done,
Roddenberry realized that Trek was doomed and decided it was not worth an
early death from overwork for a show that couldn't possibly survive no
matter what he did.

Fred Freiberger had been producing The Wild, Wild West and Ben Casey so
he was recognized as a professional in Hollywood.  In fact, Roddenberry
asked Freiberger
if he wanted to produce the show from the time NBC picked it up as a
series.  Gene wanted to see a sample episode and Freiberger politely told
him that he was a producer, not a writer and "thanks, but no thanks."

Freiberger came into Star Trek onto a set with morale problems (because
everyone generally recognized that the show would not be renewed) and
money problems.  The show's budget had been cut to (if you can believe
it) $178,500 per show.  (Ted Danson won't even put on his toupee for that
amount these days).  There were also script problems both in terms of
overall story quality and characterizations.  The script problems were
exacerbated after Dorothy Fontana (who had been the story consultant for
3 years) quit the show due to problems with "The Enterprise Incident" and
"The Way to Eden."  It has been said that Freiberger really didn't
understand science fiction so they showed him some episodes so he'ld get
an idea of what type of show he'ld be producing.  When the lights came up
he supposedly said, "Oh, I get it.  Tits in space." and it was downhill
from there in the script department.  Needless to say, the show was
canned and Fred Freiberger has been villified by many Trek fans for 30
years as "the guy who killed Star Trek."    He has been defend recently
by Robert Justman (producer on the original Trek and NextGen).

I remember when Space:1999 premiered.  I thought it was great.  At the
time it didn't generate a lot of press where I lived (the Washington Post
ran a big article before the show premiered but that was about it).  In
those pre-"Star Wars" days the mainstream press still looked down its
nose at science fiction in general and fans were just a bunch of
pimply-face adolescents in rubbery Spock-ears.  "Something for the
kiddies."  The science fiction press was downright hostile.  They wanted
Star Trek and were pissed that Space wasn't Trek so they tore it apart. 
I admit the show had problems.  Hell, no show is perfect.  I think that's
one of the reasons we love it so much after 20 years.  We can look at the
mistakes and laugh.

As for ratings, Space did well in the DC/Baltimore markets.    It was put
in good time slots in both of these markets (Saturdays at 7pm in DC and
Sundays at 7 pm in Baltimore).  Newsweek magazine ran an article called
"Spaced Out" which said the show got "cosmic" ratings.   

My understanding of the second season changes was that ITC was aware of
the criticisms the show had gotten and wanted to bring up the ratings. 
Also a year went by between the end of production of the first season and
the start of production of year two and that Barry Morse couldn't see
eye-to-eye with ITC for returning to Year 2.  Prentis Hancock and Clifton
Jones had made prior commitments and couldn't come back.  Does anyone
have any more info on this?

Freiberger was brought in because of his experience in SF.  The science
fiction press in the US had a field day.  Here's the guy who "killed"
their beloved show coming on board a show they hated.  Freddie screened 8
episodes of the series (it would be interesting to find out which 8) and
praised the production values to the heavens.  He was less generous in
his assessments of the personal relationships of the characters - "We
don't give a damn about people we don't know and we certainly don't know
anybody on Moonbase Alpha."  He wanted scripts that called for "more
honest adventure."

Well, I don't want to belabor the topic but we all know what happened.  

David
David Lerda
Salisbury, Maryland, USA
djlerda@juno.com



Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:16:01 -0800
From: Robert Ruiz (R4ARUIZ@legal.pactel44.com)

As I see it, Fred Feiberger did his job and tried to give ITC what it wanted.
His were good suggestions for change, they were just poor
implementations.  Freddy also completely underestimated the intelligence
of his audience, and, along with ITC, totally IGNORED and failed to even
try to understand Space: 1999's core audience of early adopters.

Look at "The Metamorph," though.  If they could have kept up the quality
of this episode throughout the second season, I think Space: 1999 would
have been a huge success, and accessible to many more people than a
continued run of season 1-like shows.

I've also said before that the characterization of Maya was completely
mishandled after "The Metamorph," and that most people who like Maya
are really reacting to Catherine's superb performance and underlying
charisma.  Spock on Star Trek appealed to people because he was
essentially an outsider, alone in the world, masking inner pain and
loneliness, and functioning in light of adversity.  In essence he was
someone that it was easy to empathize with, either because the viewer
shared his pain, or wanted to make him feel better.  He was also a
counterpoint to the establishment (humans), and therefore very revealing
of the humans he was bouncing off of.  Wouldn't this naturally be the
progression for Maya as well, considering the tragic circumstances that
led to her joining the Alphans?  Instead, she's bubbly, and more human
and well adjusted than the humans themselves, making the fact that
she's an alien nothing more than a gimmick, when in fact she had the
depth of character, a built-in history, to have been really fascinating and
multi-faceted, and she could have unfolded one layer at a time.

We also have to remember the time in which the series was created.  It
had for the most part really dopey competition and was at times probably
way over people's heads (this viewer included, at that age, though I
have come to appreciate its subtlety and even it's occasional ambiguity
over time).

The Alphans accepted the great unknown cosmic beauty of space
where they were lucky to be alive from one day to the next.  American
audiences weren't used to this.  They were used to active rather than
passive characters, and characters inflicting themselves on the
obstacles they encountered, whether it was native Americans in the
wild west or whatever.  The entire situation of the Alphans is essentially
passive, and I think this was hard for American audiences to get behind
initially.  Still, in time, after an initial ratings drop, the ratings started to
climb over the course of the first season, proving that the audience was
coming around, and they were adjusting to having to think about the
subtle levels of meaning instead of being spoon fed the meaning.  They
were adjusting to the fact that the show had it's own personality and
wasn't the carbon copy of Star Trek that they had either been expecting
or hoping for.  These are things that should have been built on by Gerry
Anderson, ITC, and their team, rather than abandoned.

I don't know why Fred Feiberger is villified so.  It's not a crime to lack
original vision or real talent, and he didn't purposefully set out to destroy
the show.  I'm sure it's quite the opposite.

To me, ITC and even (dare I say this) Gerry Anderson bear the brunt of
the blame.  Gerry seems too soft spoken and seems to have let people
walk all over him.  Abe Mandell mentioned he was disappointed because
there weren't any monsters in Space: 1999, and Gerry responded by
turning the show into a monster-of-the-week-athon.  The shows also
rarely evolved from within the characters, as was so well exemplified by
Tony Cellini in "Dragon's Domain."  Moreoften they were the result of
something outside inflicting itself on the inhabitants of Alpha.   Whatever
the reasons, Gerry failed to provide a consistent vision for the show and
to keep (or nudge) people in line (back in line) with it.

Did anyone watch Doppelganger last weekend?  I lasted for only 20
minutes before I bailed, and I was so BORED waiting for something
(anything) interesting to happen for that whole time.  Gerry seems to
have a fascination for gimmicky machinery and little else.  Nick Tate said
that, of the two producers, Sylvia Anderson was the one responsible for
whatever human qualities made it into 1999, and that when she left,
Gerry might have wanted to eradicate all her contributions.

Space: 1999 is a series that put the nail in the coffin of this couple's
troubled marriage.  Their visions were inconsistent, and their
resentments toward one another seem to have built up to the breaking
point over the course of the first season.

Television is a collaborative medium and full of compromise.  No one
person can be blamed for Space: 1999 so radically veering off course in
it's second season.  The real problems, to me, though, seem to be that
ITC had unrealistic expectations for immediate return on their $6.5 million
series (the most expensive series produced to date at that time); that the
entire first series was shot in succession before it was released, so that
by the time they started getting feedback it was too late to do anything
about it; ITC's constant meddling, thinking they knew better, not trusting
their creative team, and essentially failing to let the show evolve as it
would have naturally progressed without this artificial interference to try
to bend it into something it resisted being, and Gerry's failure to provide a
consistent vision and to seemingly hire people on a whim without doing
his homework.  (He basically discovered that Fred Freiberger produced
the third season of Star Trek and that he was available [never
questioning why], and said "You're hired!" without having any idea of
Fred's effect on that show, etc.)

Back to work,

Robert



Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 20:30:35 -0500
From: Bill Greer (bgreer@tricon44.net)

>Look at "The Metamorph," though.  If they could have kept up the quality
>of this episode throughout the second season, I think Space: 1999 would
>have been a huge success, and accessible to many more people than a
>continued run of season 1-like shows.

I think that this statement is right on the money.  The Metamorph is one of
the only year 2 episodes that I can watch without cringing.  This episode
showed enormous promise, but I believe that the hurried pace in which the
second season was produced took its toll on script quality as well as
overall production quality.  So we can't simply blame Freddie.  We must
consider the fact that ITC waited until the last minute to order a second
year - and then they wanted virtually the whole show reinvented.  A daunting
order indeed - even for the best of producers.

Bill



From: Charles McEvoy (mcevoyc@rcsn44.nb.ca)
Subject: Freiberger et al

  Well written and very informative.  And, unfortunately, only brings to
light the matter of Freibergers' role in the changes wrought to the second
season of Space.  I, too, do not blame him for all the changes that were
made--what was a reasonable man to do?  Yes, network execs do not have the
greatest imaginations or a hint of creativity, but they do tend to hold the
purse strings.
  Making the best out of what had become a mess was no small task,
Freiberger did a great job with Year Two.  While it was far from perfect, it
had made monumental strides above the first season in many areas--not the
least of which was characterization.
  Freiberger destroyed nothing; he made what were seen to be necessary
changes and he did the best he could with the resources supplied to him.  I
think Fred would like to know that much water has flowed under the bridge
since I first villified for Year Two.



Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:06:29 -0500
From: Marcy Kulic (mkulic@wizard44.com)
Subject: Space1999: Re: Year 2 Changes

>I've also said before that the characterization of Maya was completely
>mishandled after "The Metamorph," and that most people who like Maya
>are really reacting to Catherine's superb performance and underlying
>charisma...Wouldn't this naturally be the
>progression for Maya as well, considering the tragic circumstances that
>led to her joining the Alphans?  Instead, she's bubbly, and more human
>and well adjusted than the humans themselves, making the fact that
>she's an alien nothing more than a gimmick, when in fact she had the
>depth of character, a built-in history, to have been really fascinating and
>multi-faceted, and she could have unfolded one layer at a time.

I always thought along the same lines. No matter how well adjusted a person
you are, seeing your entire race/planet destroyed has got to be the most
horrible thing. People go totally over the edge after personal tragedies
like the death of a child, spouse, etc. Losing your entire race/planet has
got to be much worse. I could never imagine Maya as aloof, being an
outgoing person naturally, but I always thought of her 'happy act' as quite
a facade. She had to be in terrible pain when she was alone, especially
before becoming close to Tony.

I always wondered about her early days in Alpha. It couldn't have been that
easy, even though the show totally glossed over it. She was an unknown
alien with what were incredible powers to the humans. Her father had killed
two of their number and tried to kill them all. There had to be hostility
towards her.

Marcy



Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:05:32 -0600
From: ggreg perry (ggreg@nwu44.edu)
Subject: Space1999: Ratings, ITC, Year 2 Changes, and Freiberger-Reply

>They were adjusting to the fact that the show had it's own personality and
>wasn't the carbon copy of Star Trek that they had either been expecting
>or hoping for.  

the ironic thing is, of course, if 1999 did attempt to emulate star trek,
these very same people would have still condemned it, for being a ripoff, as
opposed to not being star trek.  go figure.  these type of fans' minds were
made up before they laid eye one on the series, and that was that.

>I don't know why Fred Feiberger is villified so.  It's not a crime to lack
>original vision or real talent, and he didn't purposefully set out to destroy
>the show.  I'm sure it's quite the opposite.

i think it is  acrime to lack talent or vision, especially when the lack
thereof is applied so devastatingly to said concept, so that what you
enjoy(ed) about the original work is now completely destroyed.  as well as
there being so many other TALENTED and VISIONARY people out there who could
have done the job better and with more integrity, and gotten paid for it as
well.  as opposed to some clown whose best examples of a creative moment
were "yea, talking plants, that's it!  and of course we need a resident
alien as well.  how can it be a sci-fi show without a resident alien!?  i
mean, star trek had one!"
and even if the second season was a hit and was followed by 3 more seasons
of freddie-produced kiddie space stuff it still would not be
acreative/artistic success, outside the obvious factor of say, the americans
love it!  in fact, the series would be evenly less fondly remembered since
there would be 4 seasons of year2 and one of season one.  so, on a mass
(american) commercial level in this scenarion, one could draw the conclusion
that freddie saved S1999.  but what attracted me to the series in the first
place, what set it apart and reserved it a place in my heart for ever, were
the ingredients that made up year one.  as a 15 year old, i would have still
probably enjoyed 4 seasons of year two for what it was at the time, but
eventually it would be religated (sp?) to the forgotten trash heap of other
such shows i grew out of immediately like lost in space/buck rogers,
battlestar.  or imagine if there wasn't  ayear one at all, and both seasons
were like year 2.  the entire reason for 1999's uniqueness would not exist.
the series would be just another blip in the above mentioned trash pile of
kiddie-level, saturday morning tv mentality scifi shows.

phew!  hope some of that made sense without going around in circles too much!

>To me, ITC and even (dare I say this) Gerry Anderson bear the brunt of
>the blame.  Gerry seems too soft spoken and seems to have let people
>walk all over him.

i don't know the whole story of course, but i think anderson really didn't
have much of  achoice, and really had no say in the creative end of things
after season one.  he was basically there in name only.  besides, what would
his voice have been to the combined hot air of ITC new york and their baby
freddly?
according to martin landau and byrne on the making of documentary, there
weren't many people pleased with the second series changes, but at the same
time they were powerless to change them, beyond complaining, which
apparently landau did at one time, but to no effect of course.  

>Moreoften they were the result of
>something outside inflicting itself on the inhabitants of Alpha.   Whatever
>the reasons, Gerry failed to provide a consistent vision for the show and
>to keep (or nudge) people in line (back in line) with it.

can't agree with this.  i liked the idea of the stories on the show being
about something as opposed to SOMEONE, like those shitty next generation
shows about data and his cat or whatever.  to me, most of these so-called
character driven stories or series are really excuses for lack of a good
story in the first place.  i'd much rather have an story focused on some
mysterious spacial phenomena or unknown event they encounter.  in this
department, i feel the series was most consistent.

>Did anyone watch Doppelganger last weekend?  I lasted for only 20
>minutes before I bailed, and I was so BORED waiting for something
>(anything) interesting to happen for that whole time.  Gerry seems to
>have a fascination for gimmicky machinery and little else.  

it's true gerry is a hardware and flying machine fiend, but he does it so well.
it's so fun just to watch all the imaginative and inventive gadgetry his
shows use.  i quite enjoyed DOPPELGANGER.  it was a fun, lightweight action
story, but given a twist by andersons cool battery of vehicles and hardware,
as well as the dark pessimism typical of his later productions.

>Television is a collaborative medium and full of compromise.  No one
>person can be blamed for Space: 1999 so radically veering off course in
>it's second season.  

okay robert, how about two:  abe mandel/ITC new york and fredsome?

>entire first series was shot in succession before it was released, so that
>by the time they started getting feedback it was too late to do anything
>about it; 

thank god for that!  that's what made the first year so unique.  it would
have never got off the ground if proposed as a metaphysical, existential,
adult science-fiction series in the tradition of 2001.

if THEY had been able to "do something about it" things certainly wouldn't
have been the same.

and to tell the truth, to this day i am still amazed that such a big budget
series like it ever got made in the first place.  but like you said,
everything was done practically freehand without any intital meddling by the
business suit graduates who think they know something about filmmaking but
do not.

year one was and still is a unique, mutant strain of a televison show.
as much as it was theoretically aimed at a big mainstream american tv
market, i perceive it much more like a gift to all those who enjoy
intelligent, challenging, literary-style hard science-fiction.  a very,
very, very, very (one more) very rare commodity on tv, especially american
television.  and in this context, it makes perfect sense that once the suits
saw it, they freaked and said "comedy, romance, cheesiness, action, freddie,
talking foilage, dancing gorillas, skirts, stickers, smaller, brighter,
disco and warps.



From: djlerda@juno44.com (David J Lerda)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:45:24 EST

Hear, hear!  I think  that "cosmic" sense-of-wonder- of -the universe
FEELING in year 1 is why I remember Space so fondly.  IMHO, getting away
from that was what killed the show.  I know this sounds trivial, but I
think that one of the biggest mistakes they made was changing the
soundtrack.  Barry Gray's music set the tone for the whole first season. 

> i liked the idea of the stories on the show 
>being about something as opposed to SOMEONE, like those shitty next 
>generation shows about data and his cat or whatever.  

At last!  Someone else who doesn't think Star Trek:TNG is the greatest SF
show to ever grace the tube!  I think it's possible for shows to be about
something AND someone and still hold up.  I think some of the best 1999
shows were in this tradition: ("Infernal Machine", "Dragon's Domain", 
"Breakaway", "The Last Sunset", "The Metamorph").  Please note there is
only one Year 2 episode listed.

I agree with you Gregg.  Year 2 just reeks of a bunch of guys getting
together in a smoky back room and saying "Okay - put the broads in
skirts.  Bring in an alien.  We can't afford pointed ears so give him
funny eyebrows and green ears.  Hey, let's make him a girl - Spock was a
guy,  our alien will be a girl!  'Ain't we original!  Now, forget this
'black sun' crap.  We need action, action, action.  That big set you got
for the control room has got to go.  Too expensive.  What's the budget
for rubber monsters?  We need a monster in every show.  The kid's love
monsters.  Cut the wardrobe budget for the guest stars.  I want the
broads falling out all over the place.  This thing'll run forever - It's
got  Spock (I mean whats-her-name), monsters, and tits."   Never mind a
story that actually challenges the neurons.  "I mean, baby, we're talking
TELEVISION here"



Subject: Re: Space1999: Ratings, ITC, Year 2 Changes, and Freiberger-Reply
From: atomicpossum@juno44.com (Jonathon P Stadter)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:09:00 EST

     I've said in the past that Freddie's one big sin was eliminating
that 'cosmic' element and turning the show into a 'Starsky & Hutch' style
format.  The conflicts turned from 'man vs. nature (cosmos)' or 'man vs.
himself' (w/ shows like "Force of Life?") to '"man" vs. man,' or stories
where the 'bad guy' comes and does malevolent things to the Alphans (The
Taybor, Magus, etc).

>At last!  Someone else who doesn't think Star Trek:TNG is the greatest
>SF show to ever grace the tube!

     Oh, hey, I rant about how bad ST:TNG is til I'm blue in the face and
people tell me how much they LOVE the characters!

      Actually, I don't even care for "The Metamorph" that much.  The
story seems strong on introducing Maya but kind of shaky on Mentor
(IMHO).  Maybe it's just the jarring change in style from Y1.



Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:31:41 -0800
From: Robert Ruiz (R4ARUIZ@legal.pactel44.com)
Subject: Space1999: Ratings, ITC, Year 2 Changes, and Freiberger

> the ironic thing is, of course, if 1999 did attempt to
> emulate star trek, these very same people would have
> still condemned it, for being a ripoff, as opposed to not
> being star trek.  go figure.

Absolutely agreed.  I saw this behavior at my one and only convention when I was
15 and I just felt like taking the podium and screaming at them for blindly
parroting Star Trek-isms and thinking themselves such great fans, while so
clearly (and vocally) not even UNDERSTANDING what Gene Roddenberry meant about
appreciating and respecting "infinite diversity in infinite combinations."  They
seemed to be in it for the window dressing or the humor alone,  I don't know.

> i think it is a crime to lack talent or vision

It's sad, it's a waste, but it's not a crime.  To be a crime, there has to be
intent, and I'm sure Freddie believed he was making changes for the better
(which may be sad commentary on his ability to perceive, evaluate, and
implement).

> especially when the lack thereof is applied so devastatingly
> to said concept, so that what you enjoy(ed) about the
> original work is now completely destroyed.

Yes, but I don't see anything wrong with trying to make the show more
available/understandable/satisfying to the average viewer (or even younger
viewers who would then buy more toys).  They had investors to answer to.  The
difference, the CRIME of it, is that to get this perceived, sought after
audience they ignored their core group of early adopters, essentially betraying
the people who had brought them this far.  Where was the market research?  It's
sad (and I would say irresponsible to ITC's investors) that they only knew about
Nick Tate's appeal because he was asked to appear at one Star Trek convention.
This is the only reason they wanted him back for Series 2.  ITC and Freddie are
guilty of assuming they KNEW BETTER, and being too lazy to research whether
their snap judgment opinions had any basis in fact.

> as well as there being so many other TALENTED and
> VISIONARY people out there who could have done the
> job better and with more integrity, and gotten paid for it
> as well.

No argument here, especially after spending three years living/working in the
hell hole that is the Hollywood system.  I'm convinced that to be successful in
Hollywood you have to be a good partygoer.  That's it.  Sort of a court jester
to the establishment.  All my schooling was about how to turn out the next
SchwarzeWillis flick, and I wasn't interested in that.  Hollywood isn't about
creativity or originality, it's about commerce, and connections, and some of
those connections are quite sleazy.  Sadly, merit is not generally in the
equation.

> and even if the second season was a hit and was
> followed by 3 more seasons of freddie-produced kiddie
> space stuff it still would not be acreative/artistic success

Sadly, I don't think Series 1 is considered a creative or artistic success by
the average person or even sci fi fan.  It's too bad.  I think if most people
watched Series 1 now, in production order, they would see quite a different
series than the one they remember and still think Space: 1999 is.  I think it
was ahead of its time, I also think it answered its early criticisms over time
(the characters warmed, up, etc.) and its pleasures are subtler than people are
used to.  It's more like an interesting, deceptively rich wine in a beautiful
bottle rather than one more mass produced can of soda.

> in fact, the series would be evenly less fondly remembered
> since there would be 4 seasons of year2 and one of season
> one.

There are lots of people who actually prefer Series 2 and they can't and
shouldn't be discounted (I'm no longer one of them).  At least if there had been
four seasons, and 1999 was remembered as a success, there would almost certainly
be a big screen version rolling out on September 13, 1999.  As things stand I
don't expect we will ever see such a thing.

> or imagine if there wasn't  a year one at all, and both seasons
> were like year 2.  the entire reason for 1999's uniqueness
> would not exist.

And I'd be doing a The Prisoner page instead of the Cybary.  I'd still remember
it for the work of Keith Wilson and Brian Johnson.  I just wouldn't remember it
so fondly.  I hardly ever get the urge to watch a Series 2 episode anymore,
though I watch Series 1 episodes often.

> i don't know the whole story of course, but i think anderson
> really didn't have much of a choice, and really had no say
> in the creative end of things after season one.

I think he was at the point where he was willing to acquiesce to keep the thing
going, but from reading his biography and seeing him in the documentary, I think
he relinquished control too easily, and he even says this himself.  Martin
Landau could have stood up too, but he couldn't afford to be seen as difficult
on another series as he had already been branded on Mission: Impossible.  I know
Gerry is perceived as a big time rich producer, but his biography says that he
actually sort of fell on hard times after the series ended, even to the point of
trying to get work as a film editor, and people who might have helped him were
embarassed to hire him because it was such a reduction in stature.

> he was basically there in name only.

I think that's more by his choice than you might think.  He tells of turning
over 1999 to Freiberger because he wasn't going to put his name on as producer
of a show in which Freddie was going to turn the format around, but I think the
truth of it is that, regardless of how he felt about her, Series 2 was the first
time he was producing for years and years without Sylvia's participation, and he
may have found himself lost and overwhelmed.  This is a BITTER divorce.  Gerry
writes that he hasn't seen his son (Gerry junior [who has since even changed his
name]) for years and he includes a picture of the boy that he only has because
one of his friends snuck it to him.  It's a very interesting read, and again I
recommend it.

As for being powerless to resist the changes pushed for by ITC, again, a good
producer has a way of being strong and getting around this stuff and keeping
people to the basic thread of the show, even if peripheral stuff seems to be
giving them what they wanted.

>to me, most of these so-called character
> driven stories or series are really excuses for lack of a good
> story in the first place.

I'm DEFINITELY not asking for anything like this.  All I mean is that stories
can arise from within the characters, like the character of Tony Cellini in
Dragon's Domain, and the mutiny in Seance Spectre (which even if I would have
handled differently, is an excellent story idea to explore in the context of
Space: 1999's moon base setting).  The main thing I'm getting at with the
statement above is that these stories are about people, recognizable humans
rather than automatons.  Due to RAI's participation, many of the most
interesting stories in 1999 happen to guest characters rather than regulars, and
so the regulars never got the depth that would have made them really deep and
recognizably human/non-interchangeable.

> Television is a collaborative medium and full of compromise.
> No one person can be blamed for Space: 1999 so radically
> veering off course in it's second season.

> okay robert, how about two:  abe mandel/ITC new york and
> fredsome?

Fine!  :)  You'll have no argument from me.  I will grant you that they may have
been the main parts of the problem, but I still don't think they are the entire
problem.

> like you said, everything was done practically freehand without
> any intital meddling by the business suit graduates who think
> they know something about filmmaking but do not.

You're right.  Very often these people insist on changes just to justify their
existence, and they do this with no training in story structure or even an
understanding of why the average person seeks out entertainment in the first
place, which is a very basic need that goes back to the earliest cave dwellers
telling stories of the hunt in front of the fire.

> year one was and still is a unique, mutant strain of a
> televison show. as much as it was theoretically aimed
> at a big mainstream american tvmarket, i perceive it much
> more like a gift to all those who enjoy intelligent, challenging,
> literary-style hard science-fiction.

Agreed, and well put.  Thought provoking ideas as always, Ggreg.  Thanks!

Robert



From: DAllard422@aol44.com
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:17:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Year 2 -Reply

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Actually came out of another thread,
but it really is a closer match for this thread.]

Am I the only one out there who enjoys yr 2 as much as yr 1?  I find things I
truly enjoy about each yr and things I dislike.

I always wished that they kept Victor to be sort of a father figure to Maya,
helping her to adjust.   I also wished that Maya wasn't the star of every
show, either by being the center of it, or by always being the one to save
them.  But I did like the friendlier atmosphere.  And I'm sorry but I never
did quite like Paul or at least as not as much as Tony.  The writer's never
showed us the side that Sandra loved.

Only my opinion
Lynn



Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 03:18:02
From: David Welle (dwelle@online.dct44.com)
Subject: Space1999: Apples and Oranges?

At 08:17 PM 02/27/97 -0500, Lynn (DAllard422@aol.com) wrote:
>Am I the only one out there who enjoys yr 2 as much as yr 1?  I find things I
>truly enjoy about each yr and things I dislike.

Nope, you're not the only one.  I like them both about the same, though in
something of an "apples and oranges" sense.  They both have their own
merits, and their own drawbacks.

When I first saw Year One, I was six, and most of the deeper stuff flew
right over my head.  It was still pretty fun to watch, so I hung around.
Year Two was what hooked me.  I loved the characters, the stories, and
still enjoyed all the space scenery and the ships.

Except for some reruns in 1977, and just a couple episodes in 1988 or so, I
didn't see the series again until late 1992, when the Sci-Fi Channel first
started airing it.  I had no idea what to expect, or if I'd even like the
series after so many years--but I wasn't the least bit disappointed.  I
still didn't know what to make of many Y1 episodes, but was once again
engrossed by Y2.  It took awhile longer for my appreciation of Y1 to grow,
but it has grown quite a lot, and there are *many* elements I appreciate
about both seasons--as well as many elements that I don't care much for in
each.

Don't think this necessarily contradicts what I said in my previous post.
Look carefully at the earlier one, and see how I quote words or use
'perceived'.  I may have missed a few such instances, but I was only
analyzing certain perceptions that came into play when ITC looked at the
lower-than-expected ratings and started asking, "What went wrong?"--not
what I or others perceived as viewers/fans, which I want to get to (I think
I separate that as another post).

But one more point about ratings...

Robert reminded us, in his discussion about Hollywood, of just how
distasteful the "game" can be.  Curiously, the obsessive concern for
ratings can actually lead to ratings downfalls.  How many series didn't hit
their real stride until well into the first season, or even their second
seasons?  In the quest for ever-higher ratings, producers--but even more so
broadcast executives, it seems--can forget that it can take awhile to
"find" and capture the audience.  I've heard about quite a few of the most
blockbuster TV series that didn't start building huge audience ratings
until much later--but for the life of me, the only one I can think of is
"Cheers", and I don't think that's the right example (it's been a long
day).  So many promising series get dropped so quickly it's impossible to
tell if they would have broken out given time.  It's an ugly game (one of
many), and it's afflicted so many series, including S19.

Just warming up... (and you're thinking what?  Oh no?  :-)



Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:35:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Trekfan100@aol44.com
Subject: Fwd: Space1999: Year 2 -Reply

Thanks for speaking out on behalf of year 2!!

When I was a kid, it was Year two that REALLY got my interest!   Tony was WAY
better than Paul, But I miss Victor..I like him better than Maya.  BUT, I
like Maya too.  My big thing was the whole atmosphere of Year One was so
sterile!  Serious...A bit boring...especially to a teenager.  I craved the
action scenes...romance, & humor of Year Two.

Of course, now that I'm an adult, I think I like Year one better...BUT, year
two is still a close second!!!

Colleen Bement
MBA#169



From: "B. Adkins" (camillus@earthlink44.net)
Subject: Space1999: Year 1 vs 2
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 02:05:12 -0500

I agree with alot of what you said. While I liked Year 1 better even back then, Year 2
did catch my eye. I was upset that Victor was gone, but the pilot episode
METAMORPH would easily stack up against the best epsisodes of year one and
stood on its own merits as well. After seeing that episode, I thought 1999
could only get better. Then the following week they showed THE TAYBOR and I realized that
the series was not always going to be "bigger, better, more exciting than
ever" as the  ads promised.

While an action fan, even as a teenager I found the "sterile" and "serious"
atmosphere of 1999 anything but boring. Then again, I'm one of the few who
liked BLADE RUNNER when everyone else was clamoring for ET and STAR WARS.
Speaking of STAR WARS, I'd have preferred alot more scenes with Obi-Wan Kenobi.
I remember seeing Star Wars in 1977 and the first thing I thought of (as
they showed the vast ocean of space in the opening scenes) was that our
moon should have slowly drifted across the screen........



From: Eacott@aol44.com
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:30:30 -0500 (EST)

>Hell, no show is perfect.  I think that's one of the reasons we love it so
>much after 20 years.  We can look at the mistakes and laugh.

This is so true! Look around you...how many fans of the 80s series Buck
Rogers do you see? S1999 still holds up after 20 years, and that says a lot
about the creativity that went into the show.

>Wouldn't this naturally be the
>progression for Maya as well, considering the tragic circumstances that
>led to her joining the Alphans?

But that would take time, and be character development. It seems as though
they wanted S1999 to have a quick fix. Hence they avoided this.

But I agree Maya deserves to feel deep pain and sorrow for what she went
through. After all, as far as the Alphans know, Earth is fine and dandy (not
withstanding the weird Y1 return-to-Earth episode that said Earth was
barren), with tidal problems, and all that--but Earth is still around. For
Maya, Psychon is dead, the planet's blown up, and we only meet one other
survivor!

I suppose Psychons adjust better to circumstances than us humans. Perhaps
that bubbly, more human side was a demonstration of how to properly adjust to
the circumstances. OR she was hiding her pain behind that behavior. I did the
same thing in college, put up a really happy facade to mask the pain of the
death of my father. Seeing evidence of that in the show would have had the
same impact as seeing Spock cry in Trek's Naked Time episode--it would have
revealed that extra depth to the character that we know was there!

BTW, I have never seen The Metamorph! I will copy it from you guys
eventually; it must be terrific!



Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 05:27:21
From: David Welle (dwelle@online.dct44.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Ratings, ITC, Year 2 Changes, and
  Freiberger-Reply

>the ironic thing is, of course, if 1999 did attempt to emulate star trek,
>these very same people would have still condemned it, for being a ripoff, as
>opposed to not being star trek.  go figure.  these type of fans' minds were
>made up before they laid eye one on the series, and that was that.

I agree.  It was terrible.  I was too young to be aware of the "politics"
of the time, but this was, and in many ways still is, such a problem that I
picked up on later.

The amazing thing (well, "amazing" isn't the right word) is that it *still*
happens.  Remember all of the Babylon 5 vs. ST: Deep Space Nine noise from
a couple years ago (and which still haunts discussion of either series to
this day)?  It's a perfect modern day example of this closed-mindedness.

Two very different series, and they were compared on the hopelessly
superficial aspect of the fixed space stations they both had.  Two series
are set around space stations, and suddenly B5 is accussed of being a
conceptual rip-off of DS9.  Geez.  It was so hopelessly silly that it was
disgusting.  I ignored all the self-proclaimed pundits and simply watched
both, until I realized that while I liked DS9 (some of the time, anyway), I
*loved* B5.  B5's now an absolute "must see" for me, while the other goes
more like this:  'well, I guess I'll check it out tonight.'

>i think it is  acrime to lack talent or vision,

I have to disagree.  I don't think it's a crime.  A pity, for sure.  But a
crime?

>especially when the lack
>thereof is applied so devastatingly to said concept,

That, on the other hand, *is* a problem.  But they hired him--he didn't
hire himself.  He really tried his best, I believe, to execute the demands
of the ITC, however misguided they might have been.  He fleshed out those
demands, had reasonable ideas, but either didn't have the time, or the
talent, to ensure said changes were carried out consistently and
consistently well.  So in the end, between ITC's demands and Freiberger's
handling, we ended up with two very different years.

>so that what you
>enjoy(ed) about the original work is now completely destroyed.

This, I can see, believe it or not.  Y1, as it was, was basically no more.
Having come to greater appreciation of Y1 over time (and always having
liked the character of Victor), there are a lot of things I miss now about
Y1.  The whole situation was/is simply a mess.  It was actually Y2 that
grabbed my attention, and that I remembered just enough to make me want to
seek the series out later.  I'm glad I did, not only for Y2, but for Y1 as
well.  There is so much I have come to appreciate about Y1.

>there being so many other TALENTED and VISIONARY people out there who could
>have done the job better and with more integrity,

Yes, that's so.  But I wonder how many were available when they suddenly
started looking, after having delayed for so long on a decision on whether
to go forward with a second year, and how/what to change?  They already had
to double up many episodes just to make deadlines.  Maybe they were so
under-the-gun they had to jump at essentially the first person available,
even one whose credentials weren't that far looked into.  I don't know the
details of the search for a new producer.

>i perceive it much more like a gift to all those who enjoy
>intelligent, challenging, literary-style hard science-fiction.  a very,
>very, very, very (one more) very rare commodity on tv, especially american
>television.

That is an absolutely excellent way of putting it, Ggreg, and I couldn't
agree any more.  Very, very rare indeed.  I've only seen a couple series
that qualify in whole or even in part, for that matter.

BTW, Gregg, would you consider Babylon 5 to be in this category?  Or
perhaps I should just ask if any other series has reached this rarified
reach.  (You can redirect response to this privately).


There certainly is a lot to S19, since it managed to not only capture my
attention in the first place, but hold it over many years of not seeing it
(and considering I was only 8 when I saw the last Y2 episode until 15 years
later), to make me seek it out later, prompt me to find out if there was a
fandom discussing the show, and drive me (in part) to start writing.  A
little driven?  Well, it had to be a pretty good reason... :-)


What time is it?  Thank heavens for (partial) flex time.  But all this
writing put me in a great mood, so I know from experience that I'll wake up
feeling fresh and ready to go (to work--oh well, it's a Friday).  Sorry to
bend everyone's eyes so much tonight.  I got on a roll, but I've just
rolled out (am I making any sense anymore? :-)

Later, all.  Eagle Four Out....



From: ggreg perry (ggreg@nwu44.edu)
Subject: Space1999: Ratings, Year 2

>There are lots of people who actually prefer Series 2 and they can't and
>shouldn't be discounted (I'm no longer one of them).  At least if there had
>been four seasons, and 1999 was remembered as a success, there would almost
>certainly be a big screen version rolling out on September 13, 1999.  As
>things stand I don't expect we will ever see such a thing.

well, if the reality were that we would be seeing a season 2 movie, well,
i'm even more happy that it didn't happen.

the reality in this scenario would be that season one would definitely be
treated like  amistake, an anomaly to be completely dismissed, and that they
finally got things on track from season 2 on.

yeesh.

the mind reels...



Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:39:07 -0500
From: Marcy Kulic (mkulic@wizard44.com)
Subject: Space1999: Season 1 vs. Season 2

[EDITOR'S NOTE: relevant parts only]

While I agree
with a lot of the criticism of season 2, I am still definitely a Y2 fan.

I watched 1999 during it's original run with my Mom. I remember absolutely
nothing about season 1 from that time except how hard we both laughed at
the overflowing washing machine in Space Brain while my Season 2 memories
were surprisingly sharp. It was season 2 that captured my then 8-year-old
fancy. In the mid 70s there was very little television that showed a strong
female lead and I ate those shows up. Now here in season 2 was Maya, a
strong, independant alien who could do things that none of the men could.
It fit right in with all my other favorite shows of the time - The Bionic
Woman, Wonder Woman, and Charlie's Angels. Granted these shows were on the
whole corny, but at least the women were all strong and independant,
something pretty uncommon at the time. It took me years to figure out why I
liked The Bionic Woman but didn't really like The Six Million Dollar Man
(8-year-olds aren't too strong in the logic department).

It was years later that my fond memories of 1999 season 2 drove me to see
the series again. I connected with someone on America Online who rented and
copied all the year 2 laserdiscs for me about 5 years ago (memory is vague
about the exact time frame). Watching these showed me how silly some of the
episodes were but also reawakened my interest in the series as a whole.
When I got onto the web I immediately searched for 1999 pages, found the
list and a whole chain of events started that led up to the creation of the
Cyber Museum. The Cyber Museum is definitely an equal opportunity web page,
accepting things from either season, but it does owe it's entire existence
to Year 2.

Now I have wonderful copies of all the laserdiscs and can appreciate a lot
more of season 1 than I did at 8. However even at 29 I still find the
acting wooden at times, especially from Barbara Bain. I blame the director
for this, as she was wonderful in a huge variety of roles in Mission:
Impossible. Even though we saw very little of Cinnamon Carter's real
persona, Barbara Bain conveyed much of it in the role, so that I always saw
her as a very fun, playful person when she wasn't involved in the spy
business.

[....]



Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:00:23 -0800
From: Robert Ruiz (R4ARUIZ@legal.pactel44.com)
Subject: Space1999: Ratings, Year 2  -Reply

> well, if the reality were that we would be seeing a season
> 2 movie, well, i'm even more happy that it didn't happen.

I wouldn't want to see a big screen version of Series 2 type stuff, but I
would love to see a big screen version of Space: 1999, though really it
doesn't seem to lend itself to that.  You'd spend the first hour setting the
thing up, establishing the characters and the basic situation, and
launching them out into space, then probably a period of struggle, then a
vague hope of finding a new home, and then succeeding in finding it (of
course) since you "can't" have a downbeat/realistic ending in Hollywood
these days.

I'm even looking forward to the Lost in Space movie because I'm
assuming that they will treat it more like grownup material this time
(hoping anyway), and I want to see the kinds of choices they make,
whether it's entertaining or not.  (I expect ultimately it will be unfulfilling.)



Subject: Space1999: R: Space 1999: Season 1 vs Season 2
From: aritz1622@juno44.com (Anthony J Ritz)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 12:25:27 EST

Maurizio requested me to forward this to the list.
____________________________________________________________

Hi all,

>Season 1 vs. Season 2

...Well,this topic will be always, I think, our main
reason of "inner polemic", but it is not too bad
because each time there are new good points
to discuss.

Here's my $0.02:

The structure of the season1 was extremely different,
either regarding the contents, as for the screen quality.
Just a few aspects:

The stage

What lot of people consider a neutral, aseptic, habitat
(and I include here even the relationships, more or less
formal between the characters)
was, instead, a subtle highlighter of tensions, fears, enthusiasm
and disappointment. It worked fine for the contact with the aliens
as well. The same is valid for the haunting, moody atmosphere of the MBA.

The originality

Consider the aliens of the first season.
I can't forget, for example, that the first encounter the alphans had with
extraterrestrial intelligence was with Zantor (the best Alien
character I've ever seen so far). While other series (even s1999 season2)
 wasted their time trying to invent new ridiculous masks to describe diversity, and
most of the time just hostility,in Earthbound we enjoy the masterly and effective
use of the colours (make-up and dresses) to depict a wise, peaceble and believable
alterity (sp?).
So we don't ask why they can speak english or similar silly questions
but simply we get involved into the drama (that's it). Long discussion
here...

The cast

Each single actor/actress gave the best during the first season because,
in my opinion again, they realised they were starting a new ambitious project.
They already were, except for some security extra-parts ;), well-experienced
people who influenced quite a lot the naturalness of their role.
Yes, I said and repeat naturalness, because, in spite of many rushed opinions and
superficial reviews I still consider the first season much more realistic, deep, feelings-caring
and warm than the season 2. What does the term "wooden" mean? The relationships are
often awkward in the actual life. People are complex, outgoing or introverse, rude or polite,
extroverted or shy. Was Helen wooden in Matter of Life and Death? Was Jonh wooden
when he realised that Simmonds was done for?And Paul in Black Sun when he says goodbye to
John and Victor in the languishing Main Mission?

I found none of these magics in the second season and the cleverness of Maya didn't seem
enough to me to stand comparison with the unforgettable season one. Even the main cast
seemed to think beyond S1999. The show had become a serial product at the mercy
of producers, networks and ratings by now. That's just my opinion, obviously.

Maurizio