From: "Willey, Martin J" (martin.willey@eds-com) Subject: RE: Space1999: The Testament of Arkadia & the MUF Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:19:15 +0100 [Petter Ogland asked the following the in 'Testament of Arkadia' thread:] > Who introduced the MUF concept > anyway? My impression is that it has come from some American critic who > wanted to talk about SPACE:1999 in a derogatory way after failing to > understand FORCE OF LIFE on STAR TREK terms. It was David Houston in Starlog magazine, especially an article in Starlog 2 titled "Recovering from the Mysterious Unknown Force" (it's in the cybrary.. http://209.132.68.46/publications/art41.htm). I quote... -------------------- "Metamorph" is a straightforward adventure story. Its theme is "truth conquers all" and, at the conclusion, the audience is left with a perfectly clear idea of what has transpired and in what way the Alphans' lives have been affected. Not once (as so often happened last year) are we told to accept the fuzzy "mysterious unknown force" as an explanation of how something came to occur. While a good many scientific principles in [The] "Metamorph" are left vague, those ideas that affect the plot are clear. --------------------- ...and that's how it started! Some fans like the MUF for the same reasons others dislike it- it's where the series is deliberately vague and doesn't explain things. You could also call it metaphysics. David Hirsch on the same magazine wrote a three part guide to the mysterious unknown force which was very positive to the series- I couldn't find it on the cybrary. The key text from the series is probably Koenig & Victor talking in Black Sun: "I'm a scientist, I don't know anything about God. But a sort of 'cosmic intelligence' is what I've got in mind." "Which intervenes at the right moment?" "It's one answer. Ultimately, I suppose we all believe what we want to believe. Perhaps that's what reality is. One thing, though. The line between science and mysticism. Just a line." The MUF or "cosmic intelligence" is also implied or referred to in episodes like War Games, TTOA, Collision Course and others. Although it was named by a critic, I think the MUF is a key element of the first series, and one of the things you either like or hate about it. Martin
From: Atomic Possum (atomicpossum@toast-net) Subject: Re: Space1999: The Testament of Arkadia & the MUF Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 08:37:43 -0500 Well, think about it. The concept of a 'god-like alien' or whatever that intervenes with no explicable logic or any justification in the story is some of the classic signs of bad, often very bad, writing. It's the kind of thing that, to the casual viewer, would seem like an Agatha Christie that introduces a completely new character on the last page that turns out to be the murderer--simply a convenient, easy out. Of course, if you take it as part of an overall story, or as something more (as most hardcore fans will be able to do, applying it against all the other details and events of the series as a whole), the MUF can hold much more relevance, showing the universe to be mysterious, dangerous, and capricious. I don't blame critics too much who turn in to watch a program and then are given a deus ex machina that pops in out of nowhere. Critics are rarely fans of the things they review, and will rarely take things on face value. Fans can take something as a piece of a puzzle, but a critic, usually, cannot. Especially when thay have to accept something like "War Games," or "Matter of Life and Death" (which, IMHO, is a prime example of the glaringly bad MUF), they can feel cheated and that the writer took an easy out. Of course, 2001 is based on an MUF, and most critics LOVE that. ----------------- Jon "Mr. Wonderful" Stadter FREE COMICS FROM: http://www.toon-up.com
From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@new10rock.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: The Testament of Arkadia Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 17:06:10 -0500 >the MUF concept anyway? My impression is that it has come from some >American critic who wanted to talk about SPACE:1999 in a derogatory >way after failing to understand FORCE OF LIFE on STAR TREK terms The best way to sidestep someone's bad attitude is to use those terms as if they are no big deal. Sure some crtitic invented it, but who cares, in a way he/she is right. But just because soem mysterious unknown force is behind what happens to the alphans doesn't make it bad writing, just different. In trek you always no who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, and everything has a reason. Well, thats not real life, life is shades of grey, and somethings have no reason. Thats one of the reasons I like B5 so much, "no one here is who they appear to be". > Were the words "Mysterious Unknown Force" ever used in the series? Not in that context no. But I think the concept of an MUF being involved with the Alphans is Valid. Something appears to be guiding them, helping them, and watching out for them on several occasions.....we do not know who or what that is, hence its a Mysterious Unkown Force. > I feel it's OK to stretch > and at times slightly ignore the laws of physics for the sake of drama, but > I feel more comfertable when the writers are not overdoing this. Sometimes > overdoing this thing tends to draw attention away from the more interesting > aspects of the story I often feel. Yes, I agree 100%. One of the big mistakes of Modern Trek is the technobabble. Its 25% of all the dialogue, and is so thick and intense that it robs from the story(when there is one). Another plug for b5 is that the technology and the science are NEVER overpowering the story. In fact, the characters in B5 act like the fantastic technology they use everyday is just that, everyday run of the mill stuff. Never calling special attention to it. 1999's the same way. > I believe it could easily have seemed too depressive to have the Alphans > return to an extinct Earth, I would have preffered this much more the Arkadia idea. > although this is more or less what it must > have been like for the first group of Alphans in ANOTHER TIME, ANTOHER PLACE. Yes, but I got the impression that the Earth in ATAP was a parrallel earth in a parrallel universe. And our moon was the interloper. > On the other hand, the return to an extint Earth seems to be > very much the content of the TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA fable. Byrne is telling > about how life arouse on Earth, and how it will arise again after > human kind has destroyed itself. Byrne is taking a rather sinister > point of view on human kind as a premise, THis is a recurring theme in many, many sci-fi stories of the 70's and 80's, I think due to the threat of nuclear annilation. > I agree with the music, Lancen's "Appassionata" especially, enhancing the > beauty of the visual splendor of Brian Johnson and Keith Wilson. yes, and this piece had better damn well be on that new double CD of Space:1999 music, its one of the finest from the series. > I felt > less confertable with Arel Dutur's "Picture of Autumn", in particular > finding the part with drums, bass and chorus making what should be > emotional highlights sound a bit cheap. youre right > One of the reasons I like COLLISION COURSE is that it's only Koenig and > Alan that are having revelations. Just like the Alphans I feel > that not even the viewers are too sure about whether Arra exists. No, I never get that impression when I watch this episode, especially since we get to "meet" Arra early in the episode. Maybe if the sequence in the alien ship had been deleted in favor Koenig just going out, being captured, and returning without us the viewer ever knowing what went on in the alien ship. > The lines Margarth Leighton are given seem almost deliberately ridiculous. No, I think you are thinking on our terms again. Arra was an alien, an alien on a much different plane than Humanity. Can you imagine if Her way of convincing Koenig was to say, "Look here Commander, weve got a little problem...I need your moon to smack my planet..............." It just wouldn't work. I like the dialoge, its suitably mysterious, and its no help to Koenig who as usual, is on his own. > While not the top five sort of episode I'd put it at about #7. > For me it has very little to do with metaphysics, No, lots to due with metaphysics, the whole bit about how and why the moon was there, and what is going to happen to her people are very metaphysical.
From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@newrock1021.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: The Testament of Arkadia & the MUF Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 17:18:42 -0500 > Of course, if you take it as part of an overall story, or as something > more (as most hardcore fans will be able to do, applying it against all the > other details and events of the series as a whole), the MUF can hold much > more relevance, showing the universe to be mysterious, dangerous, and capricious. Yes, yes, yes! > [....] "War Games," or "Matter of Life and Death" > (which, IMHO, is a prime example of the glaringly bad MUF) Black Sun being the best example of a good MUF, IMHO that is. > Of course, 2001 is based on an MUF, and most critics LOVE that. Thats because they get the whole story in one sitting. 1999 is more a tapestry, to see the whole picture you have to wait until all the threads are there. -Mark
From: David Acheson (dkach@hot09mail.com) Subject: Space1999: MUFs and all that other stuff Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 21:38:39 EDT Well, a long holiday weekend is now underway in Canada (Victoria Day) so I have time now to sit back and reflect. First, I have no problem with a Mysterious Unseen Force as long as it doesn't overshadow the rest of the series. In this regards I think 1999's first year hit the right balance. It was only used sparingly and did not become the focus of the show. In many other episodes the Alphans were left to fight on their own accord. One big problem I find with some programs is that the focus is so narrow. THE X-FILES is a prime example. Great range of stories in the early years but it soon became the conspiracy show. I must admit to have stopped watching it about 2 years back. 1999 gave good range!!! So Mark, why do you think the Arkadia thing is pure bunk! So is the premise of 1999 when you really think about it! I have no problem with stories about mankind starting elsewhere. Its the flip side of us setting up colonies elsewhere. I believe the FOUNDATION stories by Isaac Asimov had the same idea about mankind starting eons ago on one planet. Although no one knew which planet it was and Earth was just one of a number of possibilities. I rather live with this scenario that with the crap of two worlds touching and one transforming as we got in COLLISION COURSE. As we said before, to each his own. I hardly think Petter that DRAGON'S DOMAIN is the spiral downward for the series as you make it out to be. It is not my absolute favourite but I must disagree about it being somewhat on the road to year 2. The whole first year was filmed even before any of it got to the airwaves. Quite a unique approach to series television. Thus year 2 wasn't even a reality at the time. I see minor changes and growth of characterization but nothing that screams "dramatic change" to the series. The characters remained well within their range developed over the prior episodes. It is still very much a first year episode in many senses. I don't see Helena's voiceover as being "horrible" although I do admit Koenig's in THE TESTAMENT OF ARKADIA as being the better of the two. What I do see in DRAGON'S DOMAIN is depth which I believe is sadly lacking in some of the earlier episodes. This is not to say I don't think any of the earlier episodes are good. Quite the contrary but growth is necessary for survival. Well that's my opinion. Again its been fun discussing the past twenty four episodes. Especially finding out how different people view the same things. I am forgoing the novel discussion over the next four weeks myself. I only had two of the four years ago but got rid of them at the end of my high school days. I can shoot myself now over it. Smile! Eagerly awaiting year two and THE METAMORPH.
From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@new10rock.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: MUFs and all that other stuff Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 23:10:33 -0600 > THE X-FILES is a prime example. Great range of stories in > the early years but it soon became the conspiracy show. It became a conspiracy show? hello david, its always been a conspiracy show. I'll agree, about three years back the show had a string of episodes that were way too much the same, but I think its time you tuned back in, the show is better than ever. Episodes like "It came from Outer Space"(The bleepin' alien episode) and the recent one about a man who invents time travel only to return in time to kill himself(I forget the name) are some of the best Sci-Fi I have ever seen.
From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi-no) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 09:25:59 +0000 Subject: Re: Space1999: The Testament of Arkadia & the MUF > It was David Houston in Starlog magazine, especially an article in > Starlog 2 titled "Recovering from the Mysterious Unknown Force" I wasn't too much off the point then, was I? Mentioning FORCE OF LIFE, I believe I was thinking of a discussion between William Shatner and Martin Landau about the style of SPACE:1999 vs. STAR TREK. > Although it was named by a critic, I think the MUF is a key element of > the first series, and one of the things you either like or hate about it. I have nothing against the use of metaphysics or terms like "cosmic intelligence". I was more concerned with why the apparently derogatory term "MUF" was being used to pinpoint metaphysical aspects of the series. I was under the impression that this was a term not derived from the series, but rather from someone who had apparently no understanding of the series and used the term as a way of showing ignorance. Nevertheless, I see people are using it differently. In WAR GAMES and BLACK SUN, John Koenig speaks of God, while Victor prefers to use the term "cosmic intelligence". Others apparently prefer "mysterious unknown force". This seems a bit odd to me. On the other hand, an episode like COLLISION COURSE does involve something, perhaps, that might be labeled "mysterious unknown force". Personally, however, I don't feel the metaphysical aspect in that episode to stick very deep. While BLACK SUN delt with religious aspects, COLLISION COURSE feels much more like an investigation of concepts like hope and belief without any particular religious or philosophical references, just an absurd situation and how a conflict between rational thought and a non-rational but nevertheless strong belief is used to generate drama. I like the episode, but purely on psychological aspects. I feel BLACK SUN dvelves much deeper into the religious, philosophical or mystical aspects of the Alphan odyssey.
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 18:19:09 -0400 From: Mike Lynch (Mike-Lynch@big45foot.com) Subject: Space1999: The Nature of Energy > I wasn't too much off the point then, was I? Mentioning FORCE OF LIFE, I > believe I was thinking of a discussion between William Shatner and Martin > Landau about the style of SPACE:1999 vs. STAR TREK. I remember this interview (though I don't recall who was conducting it), this was one more notch in the bed post of so many Trek fans as to why Space: 1999 was an inferior television show and science fiction production. Martin Landau was asked to explain the nature of the entity in FORCE OF LIFE. Landau's response was, "I don't know." This was seen by many as an admission by one of the key actors in the series that the show had no basis in science, and they were all just winging it. But had those same people looked a little deeper into Mr. Landau's statement and realized that had the interview been between Captain Kirk and Commander Koenig that Koenig would not have been able to explain the nature of the entity either. This is not an admission to a lack of science, or cheapness in the show, but rather a statement about the series as a whole: There are things in the universe that defy our known scientific calculations and comprehension - the entity in FORCE OF LIFE was on such instance. Would Victor Bergman been able to explain the nature of the blue orb? I doubt it. It wasn't on Alpha long enough to study. Not to mention that the energy being didn't exactly lend itself to easy examination. Because Star Trek has always attempted to explain its elements through mounds of scientific jargon doesn't make it any more credible. In fact the mysterious nature of the entity in FORCE OF LIFE makes the episode all the more believable (in my opinion). Had Trek fans seen this they may not have ridiculed Mr. Landau, or the series for his response. Not to mention that Transporter Pads, Warp Drives, Photon Torpedoes, and Replicators aren't any more believable or credible than an unexplainable blue entity that feeds on energy. As a matter of fact, the classic Star Trek episode DAY OF THE DOVE featured an unexplainable entity that fed off of the emotions hate and anger. This particular entity also seemed to be nothing more than a ball of shifting energy and light. So I ask you, William Shatner: what was the nature of that entity? Mike Lynch
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 22:21:52 -0500 From: Jim Small (Eagle1@mb.sympatico4tag.ca) Organization: Alpha Spacecraft Maintenance CC: Online Alpha (space1999@buff--net.net) Subject: Re: Space1999: 1999 vs. Star Truck > I remember this interview (though I don't recall who was conducting it), this > was one more notch in the bed post of so many Trek fans as to why Space: 1999 > was an inferior television show and science fiction production. Anyone have a transcript of this interview??? > *SNIP* As a matter of fact, the classic Star Trek episode DAY OF THE DOVE > featured an unexplainable entity that fed off of the emotions hate and anger. > This particular entity also seemed to be nothing more than a ball of shifting > energy and light. So I ask you, William Shatner: what was the nature of that entity? Well put Mike!!!! *Rant mode on* Star Trek fans prepare to get angry at me... Sorry about this any of you Star "Truck" fans out there, but I'm sick of the notion that so many people think that Star trek was the only sci fi television show worth watching! There was a lot of stuff depending on what you were looking for. In fact, to be honest, I still have a helluva hard time figuring out why Star trek is so bloody popular!!! The old series had some good stuff and great characters, but no more than 1999, and visually it sucked (yes, I know it was done ten years before 1999) and the effects were not in the least bit believable.(yes, I know it was done ten years before 1999) Well, maybe somebody DID figure out a way to cast an eight hundred foot long spacecraft out of one piece of white plastic, but it still looks terribly fake! The sets sucked too. WOW! Vac-formed yellow and red plastic half-cylinders and boxes glued to the inside of an angled tube in a smooth whatever-coloured wall! Real hi-tech stuff! I must say, though, I enjoyed the movies (which made that eight hundred foot long white piece of molded plastic into something much more beleivable) numbered 1, 2, 3, 6 and partly some of the others but... The few effects shots you see in the (several knock off) new series' (such as TNG) are wonderful (But highly repetitive: Same ol' shot of the Extrasize [with engines that look far too much like something I'm not going to say here!] gliding by), but the show's political correctness makes it unbearable to watch! I swear to goodness when I first saw the pilot "Encounter at Farpoint" I fully expected to see a Diet Pepsi vending machine in one corner! With Next Gen (or as I call it, "Star Trek The Next Abomination"), Just when you're getting to a climax on the show, you get a big let-down of anticlimax at the end! It's like they get so far and then they say "Hey! We can't do that! It's too exciting! We might offend some namby-pamby out there! We gotta go for the peace loving crowd" I say to hell with that! Let's see a good battle! Remember it's fantasy!!! And what the hell is it with everyone being the nice guy! If people really acted the way they do on the show they'd all die of apathy! Geez! It's inhuman for people to be that nice and all caring in a wonderful panacea where no one has any desires except to just be nice to everyone else! Sheesh! (watch me catch hell for that comment!) Question: When you watch the commercial previews for the upcoming episode for any of the newer Trek shows, they tout it as a MAJOR action adventure piece with lotsa special effects and action. This tells me they're trying to market for an audience that LIKES action adventure. Then you watch the episode, and you discover that all the shots of action you see on the ep were all shown in the commercial. The show actually seems to be aimed at the pacifist/sleep induced crowd. Why this deviation between one format and another? Hmmm? And another thing... the technology is WAY too advanced! Think about it! Transporters, holodecks, matter re-arangers, matter creators, matter to energy transducers, energy to matter responders yada-yada-yada... They have complete control over matter! They can make ANYTHING they want! Why the hell should they ever get into trouble? AAAaahhhh.... To much to swallow. *Rant mode off* Sorry about that, but It's gotta be said by someone! May as well be me! But seriously, I just think the characters and conditions of 1999 are much more believeable than those in Star Trek. The people just seemed much more real and act more real in circumstances that seem more plausible. L8er!
From: StarParty (StarParty@aol4tag.com) Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:30:29 EDT Subject: Space1999: 1999 vs Trek >I'm sick of the notion that so many people think that Star Trek was the >only sci fi television show worth watching I'm not certain what is bringing this old, moldy argument into the forefront again -- but it was a STUPID fight back in the '70s and even sillier now. It's like comparing apples and oranges -- you have two completely different situations, one where the people WANTED to be there and the other, where they were essentially FORCED into the situation and had to react to it. There are many, many fans who do enjoy both 1999 and (some) Trek, myself included. When this argument invariably surfaces, I sense an underlying feeling of some sort of unspoken jealously over the continued popularity of Trek. Next are we going to have more Freddie bashing??? Tony
From: "Brian Dowling" (brian@hellion-prestel-co.uk) Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 22:20:40 +0000 Subject: Re: Space1999: 1999 vs Trek > I'm sick of the notion that so many people think that Star Trek was the > only sci fi television show worth watching and I do agree with him, but these days it seems to be paranoid conspiracy theory stuff like the X-Files that is the only sci-fi worth watching. Groundbreaking it certainly isn't. To the 1999 vs Trek issue... > I'm not certain what is bringing this old, moldy argument into the forefront > again -- but it was a STUPID fight back in the '70s and even sillier now. > It's like comparing apples and oranges -- you have two completely different > situations, one where the people WANTED to be there and the other, where they > were essentially FORCED into the situation and had to react to it. 'Nuff said. Methinks part of this comes from the original run of the show when people compared it to StarTrek because they hadn't got the wherewithal to compare it to anything else. In the UK, there was plenty of groundbreaking sci-fi around, and when compared to that, Space:1999 was unique. The only thing which came near Space:1999 was the shortlived Moonbase 3, and that didn't have the moon being blasted out of orbit. Had Doctor Who or Blake's 7 been given the kind of funding Space:1999 had, we could well be seeing Avon's son trying to usurp Servalan's clone from control of the Terran Fedreation, or Daleks flying up stairs long before they finally mastered it in 1988! > There are many, many fans who do enjoy both 1999 and (some) Trek, myself > included. When this argument invariably surfaces, I sense an underlying > feeling of some sort of unspoken jealously over the continued popularity of > Trek. Next are we going to have more Freddie bashing??? From a personal point of view... I enjoy some Star Trek - the new DS9 has been worth seeing thus far, but in many respects, the Trek franchise has become self-mocking in its desire to propogate the Trek myth and keep the money coming in to Paramount. It grew tired a long time ago. Space:1999 hasn't suffered from this "we will survive and proliferate" (apologies to Cyberleader David Banks) attitude. Even now we are still discussing what could happen in the Alphan timeline, the rerun on the BBC may well get more people interested in the show, tired is one thing this series and this list is NOT. If we can agree that a direct comparison between the two is erroneous because of their two natures, let it rest at that. At least when I tell people I'm a Space:1999 fan I don't get crappy false ear/hairpiece/Klingon jokes. More likely I get a "those Eagles were so cool" reply.
From: "Robert Ashley Ruiz" (cybrarian@cybrary-1999.com) Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:29:47 +0000 Subject: Space1999: No Trek Jealousy > When this argument invariably surfaces, I sense an underlying > feeling of some sort of unspoken jealously over the continued > popularity of Trek. Next are we going to have more Freddie > bashing??? I have no jealousy over the continued popularity of Trek -- I just don't understand it. Trek has its place and I used to like 1960s Star Trek better than just about anything. (I just got high quality working replicas of the phaser pistol and communicator and they're awesome.) The reason I don't like Trek anymore is that it's derivative on top of derivative and at this point watered down so as to be next to nothing. I can't remember the last time there was an IDEA on any of the post original Trek episodes that gave me something to think about rather than to simply accept at face value. Of all the Trek incarnations the only one I pause and watch a little of is Voyager because I like Kate Mulgrew, Jeri Ryan, and some of their sets. I usually change it though when I get a dose of Neelix (Quark II) or the Doctor. Paris is pretty boring as a character as well and Chakotay seems underutilized. (I'm basing this on the three or so episodes I've seen this season.) It's not jealousy, it's more about been there, done that.
From: Atomic Possum (atomicpossum@toast-net) Subject: Re: Space1999: 1999 vs Trek Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:28:52 -0500 The differences being more the point. I think what Jim was saying was that the popularity of Trek at the time 1999 came out gave most critics and much of the public the expectation that they would be seeing something Trek-ish. Remember, this was before the sequel series, even before the first movie, and this was when Trek was really getting popular--in its first few reruns. The public expectation was for something along the Trek line...and of course, 1999 wasn't, and many people see some of that being partially responsible for 1999's poor reception. >Next are we going to have more Freddie bashing??? Actually, Freddie bashing is something you can do hand-in-hand with the Trek fans. (And the Six Million Dollar Man fans, and maybe with the Wild, Wild West fans). [This triggers a long thread on Fred Freiberger.]
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 19:46:06 -0600 Subject: Space1999: Science Fiction in General From: "Shon R. Edwards" (sredwards@juno4tag.com) >I'm sick of the notion that so many people think that Star Trek was >the only sci fi television show worth watching I am actually impressed by a lot of different types of science fiction (especially the oldies). Of course, every person has his or her own idea of what makes it "good," i.e., action, hidden meanings/subtlety, spelled out meanings, good (newer) special effects, new scientific ideas (both believable and unbelievable), sophistication, connections to famous literary works or authors, values/lessons taught, emotional content, etc. I personally like all of those, depending on my mood at the time. Almost any series has at least one episode worth watching. I like most Treks and S99s (1st and 2nd season - 2 different shows, really). (Interestingly, I like far more S99 episodes from the 1st season than the 2nd, but of the few I like in the 2nd season, I like some more than my favorites in season 1). I like Lost in Space (most of the 1st season (b/w) and a couple of 3rd season episodes), old Outer Limits (about half). I like Twilight Zone, old and new (though I admit, if I watch a few TZ-old time travel episodes in a row, I quickly grow weary). Several Battlestar Galactical episodes I thought were just outstanding. The list goes on with a few of each of the following: Trek animated, DS9, Bionic Woman, Six Million Dollar Man, Buck Rogers, Hulk, Fantastic Journey, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, and even one or two Time Tunnel and Land of the Giants episodes. Even with a series that I generally don't enjoy watching (e.g., ST-TNG), I generally find a favorite or two there as well ("The Inner Light" I thought was better than any ep of any Trek series, new or old). For me it's hard to say that one particular series has it all or is the one that is "good." There are only a very few series I like most of the eps from, but I think just about every series has its moment to shine. Shon Edwards Provo, UT, USA
From: "Ariana" (ariana6@usa-net) Subject: Re: Space1999: No Trek Jealousy Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:20:27 +0100 The one you should look out for, imho, is Deep Space Nine, which is by far the darkest and most mature of the Trek incarnations (all things being relative, of course). Not surprisingly, it's the least popular of the series: it even had the audacity to call into question some of the squeaky-clean Main Street, USA attitudes of traditional Trek! Of course, it is still American TV, so there's a limit to its daring, but I really place it oodles above Voyager which has just about zero continuity. But that's just IMHO and YMMV and all that... and er, I think I've strayed off-topic as well. The person who said this discussion was like comparing apples to oranges was right. Though I wonder how a face-off between Odo and Maya would turn out... :) Emma
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@new11rock.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: No Trek Jealousy Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 16:47:30 -0500 > The one you should look out for, imho, is Deep Space Nine, which is by > far the darkest and most mature of the Trek incarnations Totally, its also the most endering, because the characters have REAL problems. > Not surprisingly, it's the least popular of the series Last I seen the ratings, it was happily pummeling Voyager . > it but I really > place it oodles above Voyager which has just about zero continuity. Voyager has Jeri Ryan's boobs and that's it. What really bugs me about V'ger is that it has nothing to say. Its just action adventure in a scifi setting with a reset button. Has anyone seen the previews for the Season Finale? Boy, these guys are so lost in space that not only are they bringing them home to familar territory, they are dumping the ship. Its too bad the local affiliate gave UPN the boot, because I'd have like just to see the outcome of this episode. The way I see it, this is a lose, lose epsiode idea. If they hit the reset button and put them back just the way they were, then they have learned nothing, and the show is as dumb as ever. If they actually do bring them home, revamp the format, and ditch the old ship, they might just as well run up the white flag and admit defeat. Mark