[EDITOR'S NOTE:  This topic, as usual, is still highly controversial....]



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).



From: Terry Lee (TerryL@a44symetrix.com)
Subject: RE: Space1999: Freddie bashing
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:33:45 -0700

Let's not forget that FF was involved in Josie And The Pussycats In
Outer Space as well. Didn't one of the creatures that Maya turned into
looked similar to the Bleep (not to be confused with the Blawp)?

Terry



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no)
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 17:12:41 +0000
Subject: Space1999: Freddie bashing

And hand-in-hand with the Scooby-Doo fans...

On the other hand, if one would like a more balanced view:

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Boulevard/2196/freiberger.html

Petter



From: Atomic Possum (atomicpossum@toast-net)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Freddie bashing
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:51:02 -0500

     Well, I wouldn't call that 'balanced.'  While the writer does make
some points regarding Frieberger being blamed for far too much, he also
takes a number of backhanded swipes and specious arguments (he defends
Frieberger by saying that he fought against Hitler in World War Two--what
does that have to do with his producing?) regarding those who have
criticism of Frieberger.  Taking both sides into account might more
accurately be called 'balanced.'

     I do think that calling Frieberger a 'series-killer' is a bit much.
He was brought into situations that were already troubled, and it is very
difficult to change the course of ratings in a single year.  But he does
deserve much blame for some of the shallow episodes, the glaring continuity
errors, and a certain laxness on certain details.

     Frieberger made certain decisions.  If these decisions can be
adequately criticized, then Frieberger deserves the blame.

     In writing, his plots are generally some of the least-liked in the
series.  I'm not sure if he wrote scripts because none were available and
time was growing short or if he genuinely thought he was getting the show
on track, but his plots seem to be based on a desire for physical activity
at the sacrifice of mental.  "Space Warp" (treated unbelieveably kindly in
the defense of Frieberger above) is a protracted chase sequence, as is "The
Beta Cloud."  "The Rules of Luton" is not absurd on paper per se, but was
executed very badly and reeks of some of the worst science-fiction cliche.
[In Frieberger's defense, Gene Roddenberry was (IMHO) one of Star Trek's
worst writers.  And 'Spock's Brain,' the most reviled of the original
series, was written by Gene Coon, the man who really made the original Star
Trek as good as it was.]

     In his vision of the show, I think that the changes he made were
largely irrelevant beyond the writing stage.  The jackets, the move to
Command Center, Maya--all these were generally positive, and I think
Catherine Schell is the best thing about Season Two, no exceptions.

     In the changes he made to the writing, however, I do have a quarrel.
Schmalzy moments at the end of the episode often clunked.  The banter
between Russell and Koenig, intended to be charming, was very cloying--at
times almost sleazy, making them more like horny teenagers than a
middle-aged couple, even an affectionate one.  The jokes about Tony's beer
were lame.  If he wanted to inject more humor into the characters, he
should have made an effort to make it more sophisticated, not less so.

     He also stated that he wanted more conflict.  This was fine, it could
have been wonderful.  However, the conflict should have been made more at
the level of Balor/Koenig or Dione/Koenig from the first season, rather
than the more common "evil alien wants our whatever" conflict of "Beta
Cloud" or "The Taybor."  Some conflict of ideas and purposes, not of simple
motivations, would have been preferred.

     Some episodes of season two are quite good, but most of those I have
to take with a grain of salt (to filter out the 'schmaltz' factor)."The
Mark of Archanon" is decent, although the aliens suffer a bit from rather
silly costumes (get that boy some pants, please).  "The Lambda Factor" has
some nice conflicts.  The Dorcons has Patrick Troughton.  I even like "One
Moment of Humanity," but to do that I've got to choke down that its a
'robots want to be human story,' as well as some really funny dancing.
But with most of these I have to avoid certain elements that seemed to dumb
down the atmosphere as a whole, in order to insert some gimmicks or gadgets
or yoks.

     Of course, season two was produced on an impossible schedule.  This
undoubtedly had some effect on the series as a whole, and Freddie deserves
credit for getting the whole thing done on time and budget.  As a producer,
at the business level he is probably quite good.  Unfortunately, I do not
care for the man's creative sense.

Jon "Mr. Wonderful" Stadter



From: "Brian Dowling" (brian@hellion-prestel-co.uk)
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 22:43:57 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Freddie bashing

> (he defends Frieberger by saying that he fought against Hitler
> in World War Two--what does that have to do with his producing?)

<grin>
You know, Space:1999 might well have gotten off lightly.  Spike
Milligan also fought against Hitler in World War Two, and there are
many many Hitler jokes and parodies in Spike's literature and Q series,
Adolf Hitler plays George Formby comes to mind.  We could have faced a
recurring storyline of a cosmic Hitler...
</grin>

> I do think that calling Frieberger a 'series-killer' is a bit much.
> He was brought into situations that were already troubled, and it is very
> difficult to change the course of ratings in a single year.  But he does
> deserve much blame for some of the shallow episodes, the glaring continuity
> errors, and a certain laxness on certain details.

Something which has been adequately documented already.  I agree that
the series killer label is over the top.

>      In writing, his plots are generally some of the least-liked in the
> series.  I'm not sure if he wrote scripts because none were available and
> time was growing short or if he genuinely thought he was getting the show
> on track, but his plots seem to be based on a desire for physical activity
> at the sacrifice of mental.

Yup, I agree with that.

> "Space Warp" (treated unbelieveably kindly in the defense of Frieberger
> above) is a protracted chase sequence, as is "The Beta Cloud."

Saying that, I have a soft spot for The Beta Cloud.

> "The Rules of Luton" is not absurd on paper per se, but was
> executed very badly and reeks of some of the worst science-fiction cliche.

And inspired by a motorway road sign.  That admission by FF really blew
any credibility the story might have had, especially given the Campari
ad campaign at the time was based around a lass whose catchphrase was
based around the phrase "Luton Airport".

>      In his vision of the show, I think that the changes he made were
> largely irrelevant beyond the writing stage.  The jackets, the move to
> Command Center, Maya--all these were generally positive, and I think
> Catherine Schell is the best thing about Season Two, no exceptions.

There is no doubt in my mind that these changes were all positive,
but...

>      In the changes he made to the writing, however, I do have a quarrel.
> Schmalzy moments at the end of the episode often clunked.  The banter
> between Russell and Koenig, intended to be charming, was very cloying--at
> times almost sleazy, making them more like horny teenagers than a
> middle-aged couple, even an affectionate one.

Those bits didn't work, period.

> The jokes about Tony's beer were lame.  If he wanted to inject more
> humor into the characters, he should have made an effort to make it
> more sophisticated, not less so.

Vila!  That's it!  I knew Tony's beer jokes reminded me of something -
he was the forerunner of Vila from Blake's 7!  And in that area of
characterisation, Michael Keating wins hands down!

> Some conflict of ideas and purposes, not of simple
> motivations, would have been preferred.

There were hardly any characters capable of being Balor or Dione like
towards the Alphans.  It was very black and white in this respect,
there was no murky middle ground to look into.

>      Some episodes of season two are quite good, but most of those I have
> to take with a grain of salt (to filter out the 'schmaltz' factor).

It will be interesting to see how these episodes fare in our ExE
discussions.

>      Of course, season two was produced on an impossible schedule.  This
> undoubtedly had some effect on the series as a whole, and Freddie deserves
> credit for getting the whole thing done on time and budget.  As a producer,
> at the business level he is probably quite good.  Unfortunately, I do not
> care for the man's creative sense.

Whose fault is it that the schedules were so crazy?  ITC New York,
perchance?   I was only 4 at the time, so my recall isn't too hot...



From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@new31rock.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Freddie bashing
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 20:18:36 -0500

>      Well, I wouldn't call that 'balanced.'

No kidding.

> (he defends Frieberger by saying that he fought against Hitler
> in World War Two--what does that have to do with his producing?)

This makes him a great citizen and a war hero, not a good producer.

>      I do think that calling Frieberger a 'series-killer' is a bit much.
> He was brought into situations that were already troubled,

I wouldn't call Series 1 "troubled".  If series 2 was in trouble it was due
to some poor descisions all the way from ITC down to and including Frieburger.

>      Frieberger made certain decisions.  If these decisions can be
> adequately criticized, then Frieberger deserves the blame.

Its funny, Ive heard that argument(thats made on website) used by so many
who people who don't wish to take the responsibilty that comes with the
job.  Gil Amelio is peddling a similar story now while he tries to figure
out a way to spend that $985,000 he got for being "fired".  I know plenty
of people who make poor decisions every day, and fall back on the, well,
its not my fault, and youre not giving me credit for trying this and
that........... hey, the simple fact is you get paid the big bucks to make
the big decisions.  Can't handle the reality of a string of bad decisions?
Its time to call it quits.  It doesn't mean youre a bad person, just crappy
at the job.  Wether or not all of the bad decisions were only his or he
just went along with them, it still comes back to hey man, youre the
freakin' producer, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.

> "Space Warp" (treated unbelieveably kindly in
> the defense of Frieberger above) is a protracted chase sequence, as is "The
> Beta Cloud."  "The Rules of Luton" is not absurd on paper per se, but was
> executed very badly

3 of the worst episodes of all time.

The writing is 1/3 of the show, 1/3 is cast/acting, and 1/3 is the
technical aspect(cinematography, sets, continuity, fx etc).

I'm being kind here, and he's still liable for 2/3 of the fuck ups

> Schmalzy moments at the end of the episode often clunked.  The banter
> between Russell and Koenig, intended to be charming, was very cloying--at
> times almost sleazy, making them more like horny teenagers than a
> middle-aged couple, even an affectionate one.

Totally!!!!!!!

Even the relationship between Tony and Maya is handled with more care and
taste than the "schmoopy" antics of Koenig and Russell.

> Some conflict of ideas and purposes, not of simple
> motivations, would have been preferred.

STTNG got by for 7 years without having characters that went ballistic,
funny that Space:1999 could be lumped in with STTNG in some way.

>"The Lambda Factor" has some nice conflicts.

This episode would have been a great series 1 episode(handled in the style
of series 1 mind you).

>The Dorcons has Patrick Troughton.  I even like "One
> Moment of Humanity," but to do that I've got to choke down that its a
> 'robots want to be human story,' as well as some really funny dancing.

This is one of the few series 2 eps I can point too and call a fairly good
episode.

>      Of course, season two was produced on an impossible schedule.  This
> undoubtedly had some effect on the series as a whole, and Freddie deserves
> credit for getting the whole thing done on time and budget.  As a producer,
> at the business level he is probably quite good.  Unfortunately, I do not
> care for the man's creative sense.

Here, here!



From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@new78rock.com)
Subject: Space1999: Tony's Beer
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 20:08:57 -0500

> The jokes about Tony's beer were lame.

 Here's something sure to drum up some controversy. I actually thought that
the beer pieces were some of the more intelligent dialog from Series 2.  We
all remember the "conversation"(I use this term in its utmost diluted
version) Koenig had with the Beta Cloud, right?  See, the jokes about his
beer aint so lame after all.

Furthermore, I thought the whole beer brewing idea would have gone over
better in Series 1.  It would have been a little reminder of all the things
the Alphans had lost.  Tony's lack of success in making even a drinkable
beer would have been a nice parrallel to Alpha never finding a new home.
Perhaps were it presented in a more reserved manner consistent with Series
1, with maybe Victor, or Paul being the brewmaster.  Scenes of the
characters gathering in someones quarters at the end of an episode, trying
to make sense of  the preceding ep's events as well as the beer would
possibly have been some nice counterpoint to the cold clinical atmosphere
of Main Mission.

Just my opinion,

Mark



From: David Acheson (dkach@hot77mail.com)
Subject: Space1999: Freiberger and Friends
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:43:15 EDT

Well I was going to avoid the whole Freiberger bit before heading off
into our season two discussions but the latest round left me saying
"What the hell?".

To start I am not much of a Freiberger fan myself but do not believe
that he has horns on his head and worked away in the back room with a
maniacal laugh saying "How can I kill this show off!". The bottom line
is that Freiberger was a product of (mainly American) television
executives who felt they knew the audience better than the audience. In
some ways they might have been right back in the good old days because
some real CRAP became big hits. Intelligent TV was too odd a concept to
comprehend. Both Rod Serling and Gene Roddenberry were prime examples of
exceptions who had to fight tooth and nail to keep their visions going.
I believe the advent of independent productions and new choices to
compete with the big three US networks helped bring some intelligence
into TV programming.

Can we blame ITC or Freiberger? ITC wanted the American market for 1999
and definitely wanted it to be an American-style TV program from the
start. It was the failure of the practicality of having American writers
and directors do the show that kept year one where it was - mainly with
the European look. Where ITC went wrong after year one is that they
misinterpreted the audience. Yes, the show had very vocal negative
criticism (which did bring up some good points) but it did do well in
the ratings over all. ITC thought they could walk on water and do the
show one better by quashing the negative comments. Unfortunately they
failed to find out why the show was ever a success in the first place!
Minus point to Freiberger for doing the same.

There really was no problem introducing emotions into the Alphans and
creating stories with conflicts. Human dramas do not necessarily take
away from great sci-fi concepts. The big problem was how these elements
were handled. I still believe some good episodes were produced in year
two (it dealt with concepts not even glanced at in year one) but there
were also many silly and cartoonish moments. The detractors laughed at
the second year and the first year fans basically cringed so ITC failed
to win over the former and keep the latter. Still I believe that 1999's
second year was still some of the best sci-fi on at that time. Far
superior to follow ups BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, a major bore in my opinion,
and BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25TH CENTURY, Batman in outer space.

Someone earlier mentioned the filming schedule. Yes, lets not forget
that year one was filmed movie-style and all 24 episodes were complete
even before initial airing. Year two followed a rushed production trying
to make American air deadlines. So the epic-ness (is that a word?) of
the show was lost. It looked more cozy than grand. But that is not a
fault of Freiberger!

And lets not forget the great Anderson himself. I admire the genius of
the man but Gerry Anderson appeared willing to turn over every aspect to
Fred Freiberger and not stand up to him. If he was not impressed with
year two he should have said so in the beginning. Afterwards is too
late! I am not faulting Mr. Anderson and I do not need hate mail. I
probably would have been doing the same in the end.

Overall 1999 (from BREAKAWAY to THE DORCONS) was a big experiment. There
were both high points and embarrassments. Still I am glad it got as far
as it did.

Gotta run.

David Acheson



From: StarParty (StarParty@aol27.com)
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:56:46 EDT
Subject: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends

Finally, someone has dared to speak the truth!

I, and many others -- including several of the actors -- do believe that much
of the "blame" (if you want to call it that) needs to be rightfully placed at
the feet of Gerry.  Freddie was brought aboard as a hired hand, and Gerry
simply turned over and played dead to ITC, Abe Mandel, Lew Grade and others.

I too admire Mr. Anderson's work on Space:1999 and it's far too late a date
now to be placing "blame" hither and yon, but let's not forget the actions of
Gerry when we start to criticize Freddie.

Tony



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi-no)
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:36:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Freiberger and Friends

> To start I am not much of a Freiberger fan myself but do not believe
> that he has horns on his head and worked away in the back room with a
> maniacal laugh saying "How can I kill this show off!".

After being blamed for killing off STAR TREK, or at least having been
largely responsible for its final third season, I suppose he felt it would
look better on his CV if he had managed to turn SPACE:1999, that was an
almost-success in the US, into a hit show for the American market.

> Can we blame ITC or Freiberger? ITC wanted the American market for 1999
> and definitely wanted it to be an American-style TV program from the
> start. It was the failure of the practicality of having American writers
> and directors do the show that kept year one where it was - mainly with
> the European look.

I feel we are touching a focal point for understanding the evolution of
the series here.  As Johnny Byrne has said on several occations, if the
Americans wanted an American Sci-fi series written by Americans, directed
by Americans and acted by Americans, then SPACE:1999 would be a very
unlikely contender for that concept.

The way I see it, SPACE:1999 had a definitive European look, as David
says, including non-linear narratives, non-formula writing, emphasis on
metaphysical, psychological and philosophical aspects rather than
"honest adventure" as Freiberger called it, a "European" approach to
characterisation, a "European" approach to humour, the use of Barry
Gray's melancholic neo-impressionistic musical score etc.

In season 1 we are constantly reminded that there is more going on than
hits the surface, in season 2 there seems to have been a deliberate change
in order to make it appeal to those who prefer face value only, adding
more colour, jazzier music, having the actors shouting more and run around
a lot and occationally making imbecile jokes.  In other words, not
only merging ideas with STAR TREK, Freiberger must have been thinking
of the Hanna-Barbera audience as a potential audience for his revised
look of the series.

> Where ITC went wrong after year one is that they
> misinterpreted the audience. Yes, the show had very vocal negative
> criticism (which did bring up some good points) but it did do well in
> the ratings over all. ITC thought they could walk on water and do the
> show one better by quashing the negative comments. Unfortunately they
> failed to find out why the show was ever a success in the first place!
> Minus point to Freiberger for doing the same.

One of the difficulties of measuring quality be statistics seems to be
that people often prefer to see what they have seen before until they
get bored and want something new.  To me it seems that while SPACE:1999
was launched at a perfect time for most of the world, in Scandinavia
for instance it was a tremendous success, the US market was not yet ready.
The Sci-fi enthusiasts seems to have been longing for a revival of STAR TREK
to such an extent that they would without hesitation watch SPACE:1999 as a
substitution.

While not totally unrelated to STAR TREK, Art Wallace who wrote MATTER
OF LIFE AND DEATH had for instance been a STAR TREK writer, SPACE:1999
was obviously something very different.  Personally I feel it was much
more related to Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968), from which much
of it's look has been borrowed.

> There really was no problem introducing emotions into the Alphans and
> creating stories with conflicts. Human dramas do not necessarily take
> away from great sci-fi concepts. The big problem was how these elements
> were handled.

Personally I have great difficulty in understanding that there were any
lack of emotions in Season 1.  Rather to the contrary, much of the
discussion of the 24 episodes reviewed so far has been on social
dynamics and psychology.  In fact, I find the display of emotions in
Year One often fascinatingly subtle and hihgly efficient in most of the
episodes.  It's rather in Season 2, I feel, that there are no emotions,
the characters seem to act like cartoon characters, a parody of how humans
act.

In respect of conflict, I rather liked Jon's point of view where he
stated that he felt the best conflicts in the series where the ones between
Balor and Koenig and Dione and Koenig.  I agree totally with this.

THE LAST ENEMY is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting episodes
in respect of what Freiberger was at least saying that he was trying to
achieve in the emotional area.  Sadly very many of the juicy bits were lost
from the original draft THE SECOND SEX when it finally made it to production,
at least according to the taste of some of us, as was debated during LAST
ENEMY week.

> Someone earlier mentioned the filming schedule. Yes, lets not forget
> that year one was filmed movie-style and all 24 episodes were complete
> even before initial airing. Year two followed a rushed production trying
> to make American air deadlines. So the epic-ness (is that a word?) of
> the show was lost. It looked more cozy than grand. But that is not a
> fault of Freiberger!

Not a fault, but, as I understand, he wanted a lesser, more claustrophbic
approach to the series.  The change from a symphonic soundtrack to a
jazz-rock soundtrack did also enhance this feeling, in my opinion.

The more I think of it, the more I agree with those who view the two
seasons as two different series.  Season 2 seems like a hybrid between
the original SPACE:1999, the original STAR TREK and Hanna-Barbera
cartoons, which is perhaps what Freiberger and ITC New York were aiming at,
and in many ways it does not seems particularily related to SPACE:1999 at
all.

> And lets not forget the great Anderson himself. I admire the genius of
> the man but Gerry Anderson appeared willing to turn over every aspect to
> Fred Freiberger and not stand up to him. If he was not impressed with
> year two he should have said so in the beginning. Afterwards is too
> late! I am not faulting Mr. Anderson and I do not need hate mail. I
> probably would have been doing the same in the end.

This is the first time I've heard anyone exclaim this rather obvious
fact.  After all Freiberger was employed by Anderson.  On the other hand,
the aim of Gerry Anderson must have been just like Freiberger and ITC New
York to make the series suitable for the American market, so he would
probably have to swallow a few camels along the road.

It is interesting, though, that Gerry Anderson doesn't seem particulary
happy in the filmed 1976 interview where he explains about the new
series.  The interview was apparently done during the filming of A
MATTER OF BALANCE, entry no. 15.  Perhaps he had lost all interest and was
only in it for the money by now.

In many ways Freiberger, Abe Mandell etc. seem to have been right, too.
The major problem, as I see it anyway, was that while during the first
season writers, directors, actors etc. were fascinated by what they
were doing. They were totally committed to the series as they felt it
was something new and meaningful.  I suspect that the adaptions they had
to make in order to penetrate the American market at that time would be
as much fun and meaningful as making adaptions for penetrating the Chinese
market at the same time, removing everything that might be thought-provoking,
adding maoist and communist propaganda instead.

I'm not surprised that Byrne's output for season 2 was reduced from 7 scripts
to 3, Penfold from 6 to 1 and Terpiloff from 4 to 1.  Few writers had the
energy to write more than one contribution to the series, it seems, although
Freiberger himself made three scripts.

Just like Season 1, it was decided that four directors should be making
episodes in turns: Crichton, Austin, Brooks and Clegg.  Austin withdrew
after two episodes, as one might expect, after trying to make sense out
of the ultra-silly ALL THAT GLISTERS.  Bob Brooks didn't seem to
stomach more than two episodes either.

> Overall 1999 (from BREAKAWAY to THE DORCONS) was a big experiment. There
> were both high points and embarrassments. Still I am glad it got as far
> as it did.

I agree to that.  As a footnote to season 1, I think season 2 has many
interesting aspects, things like Anthony Terpiloff doing a parody of
his earlier work with CATACOMBS OF THE MOON, the Byrne and Penfold scripts
that give more insight to their work on season 1, the Freiberger trilogy
that gives an impression of his intents with the show , and finally the way
actors and directors try to give some dignity to the proceedings no matter
what.

Petter



From: Simon Morris (simes01@globalnet-co.uk)
Subject: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:25:32 +0100

I think for the sake of everyones blood pressure,we all ought to take a
balanced look at the issue of Year 1 versus Year 2 and Fred Freiberger's
influence over the changes between the two series. David Acheson's recent
posting is probably one of the greatest truths to hit this List. Freiberger
was an experienced(and-in many areas of tv entertainment-also
respected)producer who was GIVEN A SPECIFIC SET OF TASKS with regard to
SPACE 1999. I remember well the premiere of Year 2 on my local tv
station(ATV Midlands)in September 1976. I also remember my profound
disappointment at the loss of the Y1 style, many of the cast,the different
type of story,and Barry Gray's evocative score. But I "grew into" the
series very quickly.

I still think that series 2 had more genuine excitement than series 1(even
if some of the scripts were utter crap compared with series 1),that the
added characterisation was a plus (though I agree that the epilogues were
merely silly and crass. The epilogue of "Brian the Brain" for example where
Tony tells Maya a trolley is going to come running after her.....the
absolute pits) and that some elements were improved. Some things have
already been mentioned: special effects,costumes(I thought the unisex
uniforms of Y1 were awful),sets, Catherine Schell etc.

Derek Wadsworths score was another good thing about year 2. To start,I
remember being profoundly disappointed with his Y2 theme in comparison to
Barry Gray's magnificent orchestral effort. But it Derek's theme grew on
me. I thought his incidental scores were one of the BEST elements of Y2.
Whether or not you like his style of music(or the style of Y2 in general)I
felt his rock/jazz compositions fitted the show AS IT WAS IN YEAR 2 and the
action like a glove(I also think to term Wadsworths scores as "pop music"
or "porno/disco Music"as it has been disparagingly referred to in the past
was quite disrespectful).

The problem with Y2 was that they threw away TOO MUCH of what made Y1
great. But I think they also got rid of much of what was wrong with Y1 too.
A lot of the Y2 stories had good ideas behind them but were ruined in the
comic-book way they were executed. I personally like BRINGERS OF WONDER and
thought the central idea was an excellent one. Stretched over two episodes
was probably a mistake as the second half of the second part was
tedious(Koenig on his own against the baddies-as usual). The ludicrous
"Jelly Monsters" ruined the good intent of the episode. I know they were
Keith Wilson's favourite alien from a design point of view,but to me they
were just plain stupid.

As I have said before,I avoid ulcers with the Year 1/Year 2 issue because
my view has been for the last 20-odd years that "ITS ONLY A TELEVISION
SERIES". I view the show as a superior science fiction/action adventure
show---not as High Art. That's just MY personal view and I'm equally
fascinated and respectful of those who see a lot more in it. But at the end
of the day, to me the difference between Y1 and Y2 is this: year one was
serious science fiction with action adventure added. Year 2 was the same
with the ingredients reversed. Its was action/adventure with a
science-fiction element and yes,the balance probably wasn't right and
yes,the two seasons should be looked on as different shows. BUT I STILL
LOVE BOTH SERIES EQUALLY ON THEIR OWN TERMS.

I'd criticise Fred Freiberger for the way he handled certain aspects of the
show...a lot of this was down to his ignorance of what had gone before.
What can you expect if he only ever viewed 8 episodes? Remember he had very
little time to prepare...was that his fault? To expect them to appoint a
producer who knew and loved the first series(with acknowledged faults that
DID need corrected)is to ignore the realities of television business and
production. They needed someone to do a job,they needed someone technically
qualified,and they needed someone who could grasp the economics of it and
bring the show in on budget AND in the image that had been decreed for it
by the people who were bankrolling it......yes,good ol' ITC New York. If
anyone should take any blame for where Space 1999 ultimately failed(and DID
either series actually fail? I don't think so!!!),then its the American
office of ITC. They,after all,were sending the money to Pinewood to enable
the series to be made.

And that brings me to Gerry Anderson. He has been on record in the past as
saying that if he had been writing checks from his own bank account things
might have been different. But he was a producer contracted to ITC to
produce a series. They were financing it and paying the bills. Ultimately
they were in charge. I'd be inclined to agree with David Acheson that he
could have done more to keep the show on the rails. Don't say "Well I gave
Fred permission to change the format so I gave him title of Producer as
well to go with any changes that were made". That sounds like an rejection
of responsibility made years later with hindsight in the knowledge that the
show got cancelled and Y2 and its Producer got the blame! I think it WOULD
have been very difficult for Gerry to tell ITC what to do but that he could
have at least kept Freiberger up to speed on what had been done before and
what would perhaps be better left alone.What happened to artistic
integrity?

The loss of Johnny Byrne and Chris Penfold were major mistakes in Y2.
Yes,Johnny contributed 3 scripts and Penfold one,but you always KNEW that
they were no longer there. I personally felt their loss. Some of the cast
changes I was surprised about but not disappointed by since I felt they
were poorly used and developed in the first place. Some criticism has come
from secondary characters in Y1 (Zienia Merton for example and Nick Tate)
but since their screen time was reduced in Y2(always a sensitive subject
for an actors ego)I'm not really surprised. I have always questioned how
integral Sandra Benes was to series 1in any case and don't think her
character was treated any less well in Y2. Yes,she didn't appear as much.
But errors WERE made by Freiberger in trying to sideline Nick Tate,probably
the most well-drawn Alphan in the whole of Y1. As John Kenneth Muir points
out in "EXPLORING SPACE 1999" in the end,Freiberger did include Tate in
expanded roles in some Y2 episodes and gave him more to do than he had
generally had in Y1.

It always amuses me to read press interviews the cast and crew gave at the
time(such as the filmed ones featured in Fanderson's excellent SPACE 1999
DOCUMENTARY video,and also in magazines and newspapers). To a man(and
woman) they all say how they feel Fred Freiberger has been a positive
addition,how the faults of Y1 have been fixed,how Y2 is better than the
old. (Quote Martin Landau for example in 1976: " The addition of Freddie
Freiberger has been very helpful....I have seen about 3 completed films and
6 in rough shape and I would say every single one of them is better than
our best last year,so we are very pleased......"(etc etc). Its only with
the benifit of 20 years of hindsight that everyone starts slinging the shit
Freiberger's way. Like I said: "What happened to artistic integrity?".

Part of Freiberger's problem was the unfair label "Show Killer". Well,some
of the ones he ended up on (Six Million Dollar Man for example)had been
going downhill anyway. There is only so many seasons you go through before
quality starts to suffer...look at the sad final 2 years of Hawaii
Five-0!). He also suffered from famous attacks by David Gerrold,a vastly
over-rated and bigheaded egomaniac who had harboured a grudge for years
because of the way Freiberger supposedly treated him on STAR TREK. Being an
award winning sci-fi novelist(in later years...certainly not at that time
though)doesn't automatically make Gerrold the fantastic TV writer he
THOUGHT he was at the time(as some of his ST scripts and novel since
shows).

Johnny Byrne was perhaps the most honest AND balanced with regards to Fred
Freiberger. I myself don't believe Freiberger was right for SPACE 1999 and
it would have been better without him in many ways. But he DID make
contributions to the show (as it was in Y2)which I did enjoy. And I will
add one thing on the subject of him being (quote)"a very nice man". As a 14
year old in 1976,myself and a number of friends wrote many letters to
"senior" production staff at Pinewood while Y2 was in production. In terms
of front office executives Fred Freiberger was the ONLY one who ALWAYS,but
ALWAYS ,replied at length to our letters(as opposed to the many who never
bothered). Perhaps this is the yardstick by which he should be remembered
rather than some of the over-dramatic hysteria I have seen in the past?

Simon Morris



From: "Robert Ashley Ruiz" (cybrarian@cybrary--1999.com)
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:54:39 +0000
Subject: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends

> I too admire Mr. Anderson's work on Space:1999 and it's far too late
> a date now to be placing "blame" hither and yon, but let's not
> forget the actions of Gerry when we start to criticize Freddie.

Agreed.  At times I think any success Space: 1999 has is almost in
spite of Gerry Anderson.  Gerry's interest seems to be about the
physical trappings of his shows -- the ships, etc., with little
interest in compelling drama and even less so for scientific
accuracy.  (He himself has said this about the science part.)  Space:
1999 should have had a technical advisor from the beginning to keep
the science in line.  I don't think this prevents any kind of story,
it just dictates how it might be approached, and creative writing can
"work with it" and often be enhanced by it or even taken in a new
direction never before imagined.

Any successful show needs a strong person leading it, a person with
a consistent vision who can keep it on course with it's own internal
logic.  Gene Roddenberry, for all his by now documented "faults" did
that.  Gerry didn't.  And to say he gave Fred F. the reigns so easily
seems false to me and a convenient excuse for the show's "failure."

1999 would have been better served with someone like Johnny Byrne or
Chris Penfold producing -- someone with a vision they could stick
to. Gerry and Breakaway's writer, George Bellak didn't get along so
George Bellak left the series, but I wonder what it would have been
like and how it would have developed if he had stayed.



From: David Acheson (dkach@hot98mail.com)
Subject: Space1999: Hanna Barbera?
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:33:32 EDT

The second season as Hanna Barbera material? I think NOT!

I admit that at times year two sank down to an embarrassing level and I
have called some of the antics cartoonish. But to actually compare the
material to the cartoon production company's stuff? Year two was not
that bad!

For the most part year two was better material than the big hits of the
late 1970's: CHARLIE'S ANGELS, THE LOVE BOAT, THREE'S COMPANY, and
FANTASY ISLAND. In many of the sillier moments of year two I am actually
reminded of the original STAR TREK. I am not starting the TREK vs. 1999
war. I just simply thought, as a child, TREK was a silly show. Was that
cartoonish then? (Yes, I know they eventually made an animated version
in the early '70s.) At its worst, 1999 was still more believable than
LOST IN SPACE.

I can just see where the year two episode discussions are going. Year
one snobs versus the Saturday morning crowd? This should be interesting
indeed.



From: "Robert Ashley Ruiz" (cybrarian@cybrary-1999.com)
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 21:18:54 +0000
Subject: Space1999: Snobs

I hardly think having an opinion constitutes being a snob.  I haven't
seen anyone trying to pummel "the other side" and convert anyone --
just discussing their thoughts and opinions and why they feel that
way.  Healthy discussion.  Nothing more.



From: LKJ1999 (LKJ1999@aol1gat.com)
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:17:05 EDT
Subject: Re: Space1999: Hanna Barbera?

All i can say is, I love Y-2 !  And i'm ready for war...
SPACE WARP, is my favorite episode of all the 48 episodes.
You just gotta love that music from Y-2...

Be ready for Y-2 TRIVIA questions, I will have plenty of TRIVIA questions
starting in the next three weeks...

Chas P.       A Y-2 lover for life!!!!!!       LKJ1999



From: South Central (Tamazunchale@web27tv.net)
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 16:10:11 -0700
To: David Acheson (dkach@hot99mail.com)
Cc: space1999@buff-net-net
Subject: Re: Space1999: Hanna Barbera?

I agree with you.  H-B is too harsh and flippant.  And so it is not an
accurate description.  I was disappointed by Y2--because I had grown to
really love Y1 for its philosophical approach and its "operatic" feel.
I always thought that "space opera" was a good term for Y1
Space:1999--although I mean only the term NOT its meaning in the genre.

I grew to like Y2 for what it was--a different animal.  The element that
really hooked me was (and I am not alone on this) THE MUSIC and
Catherine Schell's performance.  Unfortunately not the stories.

Mateo



Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 22:53:47
From: David Welle (dwelle@online-dct.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends

As a fan, I really think Simon Morris's note yesterday and with David
Acheson's note the day before really hit many points that I agree with.

There are a few things that I would add or expand on.

Right or wrong, all of the criticism many reviewers, science fiction fans,
and SF magazines were making, coupled with erratic ratings, really seemed
to have an effect on some of the powers that were in control of the series.
 Yes, Y1 sometimes pulled out superb ratings in some markets, but in many
markets, it was saddled with poor and often shifting time frames, which
didn't help ratings.

It was also the most expensive series to produce to that point, and was
expected to draw *huge* ratings, and when it didn't pull in as high as
expected, and got a heap of criticism besides, some of the "higher powers"
demanded changes.

It is perhaps a poor comparison, but /Battlestar Galactica/ did get high
ratings, one of the best that network had, but was still canceled after one
season because BG's ratings were expected to be higher, especially for a
series that was so expensive (I'm ignoring /Galactica 80/ because it wasn't
part of the equation until later).  It doesn't take much of a difference
between expectations and lower results to get a series killed or heavily
retooled.  The latter seemed to be the case for /seaQuest DSV/, which was
in direct competition with /Lois and Clark/.  SQ got heavily retooled for
its second season, in the hopes of distancing itself from L&C; it did, but
in the wrong direction.

It really doesn't take much of a margin to get a series killed or heavily
altered.  Look how many series get disappointing ratings and are promptly
cancelled -- how heavy the turnover is.

Remember how long the companies involved in S19 took to decide whether or
not to finance a second year of S19?  I think they were mulling the obvious
cost of the series, and the very mixed and somewhat disappointing results
to that point.  I think many felt *something* had to be changed to improve
its chances of pulling in better ratings (i.e. more money), and since Abe
Mandell and ITC New York were pushing the hardest/most, they finally
managed to bring it about.

So FF was brought in to S19, already instructed to make changes.  He also
didn't have the luxury of time that production of Y1 had afforded -- in
fact, the time pressure was so enormous that some episodes had to be
doubled up.

Even as a Y2 fan, I'd agree with Simon and others that even once format
changes were a foregone conclusion, that there were still blunders in some
of the specifics of Y2.  A lot of the problems I personally have with Y1
were corrected in Y2, but some things that were not problems in the first
place were changed, and some new problems were introduced.  For example, I
loved the addition of Catherine Schell's Maya, but am still disappointed
with the loss of Barry Morse's Victor.  There are some other examples; but
even for the changes I had mixed feelings about, I don't lay the blame all
at Freiberger's feet.

Yes, Y1 as we understand it was largely "lost," but that was pretty much
determined *before* FF was hired.  Many people were lambasting S19 for its
"metaphysical flying leaps," "wooden characters," and so on.  Right or
wrong, the powers that be listened, and I really think it was Abe Mandell
and ITC New York that was aiming for the "honest adventure" angle.  Maybe
Mandell & New York didn't use that phrase, but I really think that is what
they pushed for (perhaps from the inception of the whole series) and
finally got when Y2 was approved to go ahead.  FF seemed to fit well for
those goals, and so he was hired.

I really think he made the best go of it that he could.  Given all the
pressures at work during the time, it would have taken an absolutely
phenominal producer to step in, integrate the best of the old while working
out great new stuff (all with very limited time), get it all ready when
production started shortly thereafter, and *keep* it going consistently
week after high-pressure week, with some doubled-up episodes and all that.
That would have required an absolutely excellent, highest-grade producer to
pull off consistently well, and though I wouldn't call FF a phenominal
producer, how many are there anyway?  And how many were available at the time?

Yes, the episodes FF actually wrote himself (as Charles Woodgrove) could be
considered indicative.  Well, I'd personally rate "Rules of Luton" somewhat
low, "Space Warp" medium, and "The Beta Cloud" high, meaning he had some
great efforts, some medium efforts, and some low efforts, which is pretty
much how I feel about him in S19 overall -- which is largely the feeling I
have with Y1 as well.

Had he the luxury of more time, more advice from Gerry and others, he could
have probably researched more about what "worked" and "didn't work" in Y1
and come to better conclusions; but coming in with strong instructions to
make changes along certain lines, and having little time, he did what he
could.  The pressure he was under could have also resulted in a sometimes
overbearing attitude, which while not the most helpful, is understandable,
at least to the extent that he was under stiff deadlines, and probably
*had* to drive hard to get the episodes moving out the door in time to be
broadcast.

He's not blameless for some of the changes that were mistakes (and fans
have wildly varying opinions on what were and weren't "mistakes"), but I
disagree with heaping it all -- or even the majority -- on him.

On a side note... Before getting involved with S19 fandom starting a few
years ago, I really didn't pay much attention to the names of writers,
directors, or producers of any series, and before someone here pointed out
FF was the producer of the third season of Star Trek, I didn't really
realize it.  I had previously made a list of ST episodes where I had given
each a 0-4 rating of my opinion.  Just now, I went back to that
five-year-old list and averaged those ratings for each season.  In season
order, the averages are 2.38, 2.50, and 2.42 -- essentially identical.
Furthermore, I never really noticed a format "break" between seasons 2 and
3.  It all seemed like Star Trek to me, with the same mixture of some
great, some average, and some clunkers (like "Spock's Brain").  I don't
think he "killed" Star Trek, any more than he "killed" S19.

S19 *was* changed more radically, but FF was hired to *make* changes in the
direction New York & Mandell had pushed for.  I for one appreciated many of
the changes he made in S19, felt neutral about some of the other changes,
and was disappointed at a few of the changes.  Not the hallmark of an
excellent producer, but definitely not the hallmark of a horrible producer
either, in my opinion.


On a slightly different note, the article cited by Petter earlier,

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Boulevard/2196/freiberger.html

is not necessarily balanced in the sense of arguing from both sides (it's
rare for any one person to do that anyway), but it *provides* balance in
pointing out an opposing viewpoint, making a lot of strong
(counter)arguments to that end, providing additional facts not often
mentioned, revealing that there is a lot more meaning and beauty in Y2 than
might first be seen, and making some valuable comparisons (like the rubber
monsters that appeared so frequently in the acclaimed and popular /Doctor
Who/ series).  To me, it was a refreshing reminder that all may not be as
it first seems.  Sure, that article has strong opinions too, and I don't
necessarily agree with every single point, even my being a Y2 fan, but it
was a valuable and interesting read, in my opinion, for making one realize
other viewpoints.  It also made an interesting point that FF produced the
first season of /Wild, Wild West/; but since I never saw that series (is it
playing on any cable network in the U.S.?), I can't add anything regarding
that.

Curiously, as much as any continuing ratings problems that Y2 also had, the
ultimate, final decision to kill S19 was, as far as I've heard, Lew
Grade's, as he really wanted to spend the money on movies, especially
"Raise the Titanic" (which ironically turned out to be a flop, and was
Razzied besides).  The whole history of the creation of S19 is pretty
awfully complicated, though I guess messy complication isn't the least bit
unusual.

Both seasons of S19, IMO, have strengths and weaknesses; and as admittedly
different as they are, both are, overall, still better science fiction,
better stories and plots, better character studies, than almost any other
series, overall.  I love writing about both seasons, and I enjoy
increasingly working format elements of both Y1 and Y2 into my stories.

Just this fan's feelings, anyway.  Oh, well.



From: Simon Morris (simes01@globalnet-co.uk)
Subject: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:04:56 +0100

Right on Dave,and well said!!  It wasn't Year 2 or Fred Freiberger that
killed off SPACE 1999...it was (as Martin Landau noted) "Dollars and
Cents". Its a good point that Dave makes that Lew Grade got intomotion
pictures,and SPACE 1999 got sacrificed. Remember the other ITC adventure
series? (The Persuaders,The Protectors,Return of the Saint and the rest)
They just couldnt afford to make them any more. Lew Grade got tired of tv
and simply turned his attention elsewhere. If SPACE 1999 had returned -
with or without Freiberger - I am sure they would have rejigged the series
successfully a further time. Maybe they would have returned to the
on-screen and off-screen Year 1 personnel.Maybe they would have returned to
that sort of style. But I am sure that many of the elements that Freiberger
included in Y2 would ALSO have been included in any revamped series. A mix
of the two would have assured the success of the series for many years. But
the fact is the money was NEVER going to be there. The so-called campaign
that ITC said would decide the fate of the show was a sham I suspect. The
series was dead in the water as far as ITC were concerned before Y2 was
finished shooting. They just didn't want to admit it.

When you think that STAR WARS etc appeared not long after,you have to feel
sad that SPACE 1999 could have been riding the crest of a wave with science
fiction booming in popularity. But ITC completely mistimed it all....sadly
just like they mistimed and misjudged everything else.



From: Atomic Possum (atomicpossum@toast4tag.net)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:36:11 -0500

     I don't think that Frieberger needs to be blamed for simply being
there.  He was put in by people with control over the show, and their
judgement was that changes needed to be made.

     However, the manner of changes that he made are certainly open to
evaluation.  I don't think there's  a person in the entertainment field that
thinks that they are above criticism (okay....Barbra Streisand, maybe).  If
Freddie recieves outright personal venom and abuse, I agree, that is out of
line.  But if the criticism is of his decisions and work, and done in an
analytical manner, then I think he gets what he deserves (or rather, the
work does).



Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 01:17:32
From: David Welle (dwelle@online.dct.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  I can no longer find the note I was responding to below.
                 All I have is what I quoted.]

>Unfortunately, if it had been a success he would have been given the
>credit. If it is seen as a failure he is given the blame.

Yep, regardless of all the messy complexity surrounding the series, it is
still gets boiled down to a few major names billed near the beginning of
every episode.  The phrase "executive producer" both implies a lot and
hides a lot.  Either way, it simplifies things for the viewer, and that can
be both good (leaves the politics out of what's seen on the screen) and bad
(makes it harder for interested parties to know what "really" happened).

Oh well.



From: "Brian Dowling" (brian@hellion-prestel-co.uk)
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:46:16 +0100
Subject: Re: Space1999: Hanna Barbera?

> I admit that at times year two sank down to an embarrassing level and I
> have called some of the antics cartoonish. But to actually compare the
> material to the cartoon production company's stuff? Year two was not
> that bad!

No it wasn't that bad.  Year two does have some embarrassing moments
(Patrick Mower's Irish cowboy and Brian the Brain come to mind), but so does
just about every tv series I have watched, whether sci-fi, serious or whatever.

Usually, somewhere along the line you will run into something which makes you
cringe.

> I can just see where the year two episode discussions are going. Year
> one snobs versus the Saturday morning crowd? This should be interesting
> indeed.

Not for me, that's for sure.  I'm taking the whole ExE thing as a chance to view
each episode both on its own and compared to the rest of the series.  And I'm
loving every minute of it!  I've picked up plenty on each of the episodes
discussed so far thanks to everyone who's thrown in their bit and I look forward
to more for season two.

Incidentally, I am reminded of the time I tried to show my then girlfriend what
this Space:1999 thing was that I was in to.  I showed her Dragon's Domain and
then The Immunity Syndrome.  Overall, she thought The Immunity Syndrome
was the better episode.  And the next time I saw her, she had made her hair up
like Maya.

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  One comment early in this note triggers a short
                 thread on 'Brian the Brain']



From: Petter Ogland (petter-.-ogland@dnmi.no)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:26:54 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Hanna Barbera?

> I admit that at times year two sank down to an embarrassing level and I
> have called some of the antics cartoonish. But to actually compare the
> material to the cartoon production company's stuff? Year two was not
> that bad!

Good or bad, I remember reading about Fred Freiberger telling how his
experience with Hanna Barbera had enhanced his imagination and made him
suited as head writer for SPACE:1999.

I find it interesting to try to understand what may have caused Freiberger
to make such drastic changes for season 2.  As many have pointed out, it
would be inaccurate to make Freiberger responisble alone for all the
changes, but, on the other hand, even though Abe Mandell and ITC New York
were financially responsible, they had also been responsible for season 1.
Gerry Anderson has told of his discussions with Mandell.  There were
obviously things with Season One that Mandell and New York didn't like
too much, and sometimes scripts had to be rewritten in order to fit
their demands, I believe.  This has at least been said about MATTER OF LIFE
AND DEATH, and I also believe New York found BLACK SUN a bit too slow.
From my point of view, the radical change from the style of Year One to
Year Two seems to have begun long before Freiberger was contracted.  The
episode DRAGON'S DOMAIN does in particular seem to embellish many of the
Year Two characteristics including more colour, as in the jackets used in
this episode, a different approach to characterisation, especially in
the cases of Landau and Bain who, Barabara Bain in particular, seem very
different from the early episodes, softening up the dialogue by adding
sit-com elements, the introduction of dr. Helena Russell's log with her
motherly type of voice.  The Barabara Bain voice over is used to a much
greater extent in this episode than in most Year Two episodes, I believe.

Someone said, Mark perhaps, that if they had stuck to the concept changes
made at the time of DRAGON'S DOMAIN, instead of going for a complete
metamorph of the series, it may have lasted even a third season.  It is
difficult to say.  Although they had changed, more change was apparantly
wanted.

I've heard that Penfold and Byrne found it difficult during Year One to
find Sci-fi writers who could make scripts and script writers who could
write Sci-fi.  Freiberger had been writing Sci-fi since the mid fifties
I believe, and while some believe he killed of STAR TREK others say
that he put new life into it although it was too late as the series was
dying anyway.

The difficult point, as I see it, must have been the enormous costs of
the series, due to the great amount of spectacular special effects and big
sets.  This ment that the UK or the European market was not big enough to
make the series profitable, and the US market was the only thing that made
any sense.

It then makes sense that ITC, Anderson and the rest tried to adapt as
well as they could in order to exploit that market.  The problem, however,
seems to have been that SPACE:1999 of Year One did not seem to catch on
all that much except for it's spectacular sets and effects.  So what could
they do then?  Should they go for another season of experimental 2001-like
concepts adapted for television that nobody seemed to care for, or should
they analyse the market and go for whatever would sell?

I believe Freiberger had a fairly good understanding of the US market.
I suppose he realised that a series that portrays human kind as a virus
incomprehensible of understanding the universe, was not a concept that
would appeal to the mass audiences, at least not in the mid-seventies.

He must have felt that the basic premises for the show were bascially
all wrong.  In his enthusiasm for changing the direction of path, wanting
it to become more optimistic, more youthful, he obviously used his
experience from Hanna Barbera (Scooby-Doo, Josie the Cat etc.) to think
of things that makes a series suspenceful and optimistic at the same time.

One of the major changes was to introduce Maya the Metamorph, a typical
Hanna Barbera character, I would say, although beautifully portrayed
by Catherine Schell whose acting abilities and seemingly natural talent
for the role surprisingly made this one of the most interesting characters
of Year Two, I feel.

Also typical of the three scripts penned by himself is the Scooby-Doo
like running around.  This is also highly contrapunctual to many of
the more philosphically inclined Year One episodes, but in some ways, I
also believe that his intuition in this respect was also bascially
correct, at least in concern of the market he was aiming at.

Some of the episodes I find the most interesting during Year One, such as
MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH and RING AROUND THE MOON, have been described as
"moaning" and "talking heads" by some who feel less enthusiastically,
so I can understand on a financial level, though not on an artistic level,
why Freiberger may have wanted away from Year One.

I feel that his work as a writer with Hanna Barbera should not be
neglected.  On the contrary, I believe this is rather illuminating for
understanding the change.

> I can just see where the year two episode discussions are going. Year
> one snobs versus the Saturday morning crowd? This should be interesting
> indeed.

This sounds rather ridiculous to me, but as long as the discussion is alive
I'm game.  What I'm hoping for, actually, is more of a freely spoken debate
of each particular episode, more in the style of what we were doing during
the Year One discussion.  I also enjoy this round-up concering the end
of Year One and beginning of Year Two.  It's interesting to think of
the series from a 24 episode package point of view too, I think.

As there have been different opinions to Year One episodes I hope there
will be different opinions on the Year Two episodes as well.

Petter



From: "Petter Ogland" (petter.ogland@dnmi7tag.no)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:44:23 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends

> So FF was brought in to S19, already instructed to make changes.  He also
> didn't have the luxury of time that production of Y1 had afforded -- in
> fact, the time pressure was so enormous that some episodes had to be
> doubled up.

Even if Freiberger was content with the change in style that was
apparent in DRAGON'S DOMAIN, he certainly had to to something in order
to explain his reason for being on the project.  Even though I even think
the changes made during the end of Year One were going in the wrong direction,
I find it difficult to see how Freiberger or anyone else in the similar
situation with a similar background could have done very differently.

> Even as a Y2 fan, I'd agree with Simon and others that even once format
> changes were a foregone conclusion, that there were still blunders in some
> of the specifics of Y2.  A lot of the problems I personally have with Y1
> were corrected in Y2, but some things that were not problems in the first
> place were changed, and some new problems were introduced.  For example, I
> loved the addition of Catherine Schell's Maya, but am still disappointed
> with the loss of Barry Morse's Victor.

I look forward to the Year Two discussion, David.  Personally I felt that
Barry Morse's character was becoming disturbingly irrelevant as the changes
were made in Year One, notably in the Terpiloff/Barrows scripts which
I feel anticipated Year Two in many ways, THE INFERNAL MACHINE in particular.
I hence understand Freiberger's reason for writing Bergman out of the series,
although he was perhaps my favourite character in Year One.

Bob Kellett seems to have tried to bring new life into the Bergman character
in his first draft for THE LAST ENEMY, but sadly these parts of the script
were neglected in the final version.  The Bergman Kellett was trying to
create could perhaps have worked under Year Two premises, I feel.

Personally I don't feel any of the problems I might have had with Year
One were corrected in Year Two, but it's ok that others feel that way.

> Yes, Y1 as we understand it was largely "lost," but that was pretty much
> determined *before* FF was hired.  Many people were lambasting S19 for its
> "metaphysical flying leaps," "wooden characters," and so on.  Right or
> wrong, the powers that be listened, and I really think it was Abe Mandell
> and ITC New York that was aiming for the "honest adventure" angle.  Maybe
> Mandell & New York didn't use that phrase, but I really think that is what
> they pushed for (perhaps from the inception of the whole series) and
> finally got when Y2 was approved to go ahead.  FF seemed to fit well for
> those goals, and so he was hired.

We think in tandem here, I see.

The schedule is an interesting point of view for understanding the
development, I also believe.  From what I've understood, Freiberger was
very much committed to his work, and must have believed very strongly
that he was saving the show.  As a great fan of the early Year One, and
feeling that perhaps Byrne, Weir, Penfold etc had managed to explore
most of the initial concept after a time of writing, I'm not sure that
DRAGON'S DOMAIN would have been a very good starting point for a new series.

Freiberger at least managed to give the series a fresh start, although
not too much to my taste.

> Yes, the episodes FF actually wrote himself (as Charles Woodgrove) could be
> considered indicative.  Well, I'd personally rate "Rules of Luton" somewhat
> low, "Space Warp" medium, and "The Beta Cloud" high, meaning he had some
> great efforts, some medium efforts, and some low efforts, which is pretty
> much how I feel about him in S19 overall -- which is largely the feeling I
> have with Y1 as well.

I find the Woodgrove episodes interesting and indicative to Freiberger's
understanding of the US market.  I don't see anything particulary bad in
getting inspiration from a motorway signpost or a commersial for Luton
Airway.  I'm not a great fan of the episode RULES OF LUTON, but I find
it one of the episodes that are most strikingly different from anyting
that had to do with Year One.  I would refer to these three episodes as
pure and essential Year Two.

Other episodes, such as CATACOMBS OF THE MOON and perhaps even THE IMMUNITY
SYNDROM are more like references or footnotes to Year One, I feel, while then
again others are based on such witty and intelligent scripts that they could
perhaps also fitted the Year One format given the necessary changes.

THE BRINGERS OF WONDER is one such episode that fit this category, I think.
The basic premises in that one are rather good, I feel, with the fairly
motionless aliens tricking the Alphans by creating a virtual reality and
nearly having them destroy themselvs while believing they are playing
golf and listening to Beethoven.  The social commentary of this is quite
clever, I think, at least as a reminder.  I enjoy Beethoven very much.

Petter



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi.no)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:50:33 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends

Simon wrote:

> Its a good point that Dave makes that Lew Grade got into motion
> pictures,and SPACE 1999 got sacrificed. Remember the other ITC adventure
> series? (The Persuaders,The Protectors,Return of the Saint and the rest)

Brian, you were looking for other series where Anthony Terpiloff had
made his contributions.  I wonder if he might have made something for
THE PROTECTORS and RETURN OF THE SAINT, and also THE AVENGERS if I
remember correctly.

If you find anything of value for understanding Terpiloff better, would
you please tell the list?

Petter



From: djlerda@juno4tag.com
Subject: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 15:39:15 EDT

>Gerry simply turned over and played dead to ITC, Abe Mandel, Lew Grade and others.

Not to turn this into a soap opera, but when where the Andersons having
marital problems?  Perhaps this is the reason Gerry just said
you-know-what instead of fighting for his vision.  I personally have
always suspected that Sylvia Anderson had a lot to do with the overall
European "feel" of Season 1 while Gerry was more interested in the
technical aspects of production.  Having never seen the 1999 Documentary
this is pure speculation on my part.  Does anyone else have any more info
they'ld care to share?

As for TV producers in general, perhaps a quote from David Gerrold's "The
Trouble With Tribbles" would be helpful:  "It's the rare producer who
thinks in terms of stories-the rest of them are making sausages, all
identical,  all uniform, and all of them with just the correct amount of
fat and sawdust to be profitable to the packer."

So that's what TV, and especially American TV was locked into in those
days (not that it's gotten much better from a lot of the junk I see on
the air).  "The hell with quality, I need the script on time, within
budget, so we can start shooting on Tuesday!"

David J Lerda



From: "Petter Ogland" (petter.ogland@dnmi-no)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 07:54:44 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends

> Not to turn this into a soap opera, but when where the Andersons having
> marital problems?  Perhaps this is the reason Gerry just said
> you-know-what instead of fighting for his vision.

My impression was that things were not going all that well during the
end of Season 1, and that they were seperated during the break between
seasons.  Personally I've been under the impression that parts of the
marital conflicts in THE LAST ENEMY reflects the strained relationships
of both the Andersons and the Landaus, although the Landaus did not
break up until many years later.

However, as I'm no expert on this, I expect to be corrected by Terry
and others.

> I personally have
> always suspected that Sylvia Anderson had a lot to do with the overall
> European "feel" of Season 1 while Gerry was more interested in the
> technical aspects of production.

This fits well with my personal belief too.  I've been under the
impression that Sylvia wanted to improve upon the psychological and
social relationships as they were handled in UFO by having the strong
characters such as Koenig display his weaker sides and weaker characters
display strong sides.

I don't think she was initially too happy with the choice of Landau and
Bain, perhaps feeling that MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE did not reveal too much
of their ability for subtle characterisations, but she can't have been
all that unhappy as they started shooting, I hope.  From my point of view
the characterisation, especially in the early episodes, is far beyond
what one would expect from a series of this kind.  In fact it's some of
the most compelling pieces of television drama I've ever seen.

I believe I've also read somewhere, in an interview with Sylvia perhaps,
that she abondoned Year Two as she saw the changes that were being made for
this season were going in the opposite direction of what she had been
fighting for as they were planning Year One.  On the other hand, this
is what she said, if I got it right, but there may of course have been other
reasons for leaving the post as producer.

> Having never seen the 1999 Documentary this is pure speculation on my part.

Then you have something to look forward to, the Fanderson Documentary was
one of the great a-ha experiences with me.  Absolutely wonderful!  It includes
interviews with Byrne, Penfold, Anderson, Freiberger, Landau, Bain, Morse,
Hancock, Merton, Kellett, Wilson, Johnson, Bowers and more.  Sadly I don't have
the equipment for making copies, but you should either write to enlist with the
Fandersons or hope there are someone on the list willing to help you.

> So that's what TV, and especially American TV was locked into in those
> days (not that it's gotten much better from a lot of the junk I see on
> the air).  "The hell with quality, I need the script on time, within
> budget, so we can start shooting on Tuesday!"

He-he.

From what I've understood, the time schedules for SPACE:1999 were not
exactly pedestrian either, Year Two apparently having an even more tense
schedule than Year One.  It's really quite amazing how they managed to
maintain the high quality they did, thinking of Year One in particular.

From a personal point of view, some episodes were more enjoyable than
others, but, nevertheless, how they managed to make 24 non-like and non-
cliche episodes out of the BREAKAWAY premises is quite an achievement,
I think.

Petter



From: "Willey, Martin J" (martin.willey@eds4tag.com)
Subject: RE: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 09:59:46 +0100

According to Gerry Anderson's autobiography he and Sylvia had a big
public argument at the wrap up party for 1999 Year One and separated
then.

Several cast and crew have noted there was tension between the Landaus
as well.

Sylvia seems to have been very involved on the creative side, in terms
of design and initial format -the UFO 2 series which became Space 1999
was largely developed by her with Chris Penfold. The initial Zero G
script was by her and Gerry (according to Gerry he would dictate and she
would type; according to Sylvia she was responsible for character and
dialogue while he handled plot).

However, it's hard to work out what was going on during production apart
from the Anderson's keeping at arms length (the Landaus were too
apparently). Most of the technical (overall budget, special effects) and
story decisions seem to have been made at production meetings with
Gerry, but design decisions and casting decisions were largely done by
Sylvia, the episode director and Keith Wilson.

When they separated in March 1975, Sylvia also resigned her directorship
of Group 3 and, with Keith Wilson, went off to do Star Maidens. Gerry
had to create a new company (Gerry Anderson Productions) to continue. I
don't think she ever considered being involved in Year 2 (or Into
Infinity).

Here's some quotes which are quite illuminating:

From the Sylvia Anderson interview on
http://www.net-gate.com/~simon/sylvia-anderson-interview.html.

"We were interviewing lots of actors to play the leads when we got a
call from Lew Grade saying we really needed someone that was very well
known, like 'MISSION IMPOSSIBLE' people. I wanted Robert Culp. We met
him. He was quite outrageous, but he would have given the series a very
interesting angle. He would not have been the stereotyped hero; he would
have been scared at times, he would have made the wrong decisions. But
we had to cast Barbara Bain and Martin Landau, whom I freely admit I did
not want. I battled very hard and stood up to Lew Grade and said "I
don't think they're right. They were okay in 'MISSION IMPOSSIBLE', but
having seen them, I don't think we're going to get what we should get.".
But he said that they were very popular in 'MISSION IMPOSSIBLE', and
that they were a good commercial bet, and that was that."The person that
was going to buy it for the network left the network, so all the casting
was really in vain. It was through him that we did it, and Lew Grade
quite rightly had to go by that. But by the time we'd finished the first
episode the man had gone and the people coming in didn't want to inherit
his decisions. So we actually had Martin Landau and Barbara Bain for no
reason. I mean, I'm not saying they were bad, I just think they could
have been so much better."

And here's Johnny Byrne on Gerry Anderson's involvement with stories
(from the cybrary interviews)...
One mustn't rule Gerry out of the equation 'coz he was there behind all
these stories. Gerry's hard and fast in the sense that his brilliance is
the technical side but when you come to story terms, Gerry has very
simple ideas and all the better they are for it. If one was to qualify
this effect: Gerry could make a good script infinitely better and make a
bad script very much worse. And I think he'd smile and nod and say
truthfully "Yeah. Perhaps" if I said it to him. He would go for the
basic virtues and he was all for, you know, people expressing their
emotion.



From: jcg@vh11.net
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:39:20 -0400
Subject: Space1999: Freddie Thoughts

I am behind in reading the posts, but I noticed the Freddie discussions.  I
apologize if these points have already been made by others...I wrote this
last week:

It is very funny to me that we haven't even started year two and yet the
Freddie arguments are already flying (which may be a good thing...get it
out of the way now so we can concentrate on each individual episode.)  I
agree that he is not a sole villan.  There was a creator/executive producer
there who signed off on eveything named Gerry Anderson (you can even blame
Sylvia as well for not putting personal concerns aside and returning to do
the job...Sonny and Cher did it, and I worked with a couple on a cruise
ship who were divorced, but still worked together) as well as the money
people in New York, and what ultimate control they did or did not have, and
how much of that Anderson surrendered (and in his defense...it was a whole
new situation for him without his life and work partner.)

My, it is easier just to have a single moustche-twirling villian, isn't it?

What ever you may think of Fred's credentials, he was hired to come in and
change things.  I don't think there was ever a chance of the show remaining
the same for year two, because the money people wanted CHANGE...they didn't
care about continuity.  Also, they did have a justifiable worry that half
the creative team was now missing and had to be replaced.  You might have
gotten better formating and writing...depending on who was hired...but you
would have gotten CHANGE.  (In fact, those creative types out there could
write story outlines based on other producers they could have hired: Harlen
Ellison, Sam Packinpaw, any of the Monty Python members, Sherwood Schwartz,
Steven Bochco, Benny Hill, etc.  There was a funny book on a projected
seventh season of Leave It To Beaver with different literary types
submitting story ideas.)  If Fred had come in and said "we just need to
tighten the scripts a little and maybe have some colorful signs on the
walls...otherwise we'll keep everything the same" he would not have been
doing the job he was hired to do.  You may not like what he did do, but he
was hired to change, not continue.

By the way, people call him the show killer from all the final seasons of
shows he did, and people mention The Wild Wild West...except it is my
understanding that he produced the first season, not the final season, and
that show ran four years (just to be fair.)

And I liked Josie And The Pussycats...had a great theme song.  The real
important question is:  did he also do Josie And The Pussycats In Outer
Space?



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi2tag.no)
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 09:50:55 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends

Hi Martin,

Thanks for wonderful information very interesting points of view about
writers, directors, Penfold/Lovelock and other things.  I hope you don't my
me sending a duplicate of this letter to the list with extracts from your
previous letter.  I believe there are many more than I who would enjoy these
facinating perspectives on SPACE:1999.

> Bob Kellett, who is a very nice man, and very frank about the Landaus
> and especially what a pain Barbara was.

I noted that you quoted Val Guest as well on your updates ot fhe catacombs site
on the difficulties with Barbara.  This does not surprise me at all.  Dr.
Helena Russell comes a cross as a very difficult person too, I think, in
both seasons, although I feel the Year Two Helena is almost a non-character
as compared with the wonderfully complex Helena of Year One.  It appears
to me that only a very difficult person could give such a convining
portrayal of this kind.  I'm immensly impressed by Barbara Bain's achievement
in Year One, and her performance is probably one of the major reasons as to
why I enjoy the series so immensly.

I enjoyed Barbara the most in the early episodes, BREAKAWAY (except the
intro which seemed a bit self-absorbed), MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, BLACK
SUN and RING AROUND THE MOON.  In RING AROUND THE MOON in particular I think
she outdoes herself completely.  Fantastic!

You say that Val Guest felt she was taking things far too seriously.  I
don't find that too difficult to understand either as Guest obviously
is referring to the two episodes he did with her in Year Two.  While Helena
Russell was a major factor in the Year One plots and concepts, in Year
Two she is a much less vital character, I feel, Catherine Schell being
much more the female lead than Barbara.  I can understand that this may
have been causing a bit of strain, in addition to the general
"Freddifisation" of the show where the more complex psychological elements
vehicled so wonderfully by Bain and Morse were no longer in request.

> Tony Barwick and Terence Dicks, and Shane Rimmer (Kelly in Space Brain,
> but he also wrote some unfilmed scripts for 1999).

What do you think of the Rimmer scripts?  Have you seen any of them?

> The director they all rave about - cast and crew- is Charles Crichton.
> He seems to have been very much a father figure to the production.

So everybody says.  Penfold speaks very highly of him in one of the
Cybrary interviews, I've noticed.  I haven't heard Byrne say all that
much, but, then again, they only collaborated on MATTER OF LIFE AND
DEATH and THE METAMORPH, so he didn't have all that much experience I
suppose, although he has said surprisingly little about MATTER OF LIFE
AND DEATH, I think.

From my point of view the directing style, or at least the result of
the directing style, of directors like Crichton and Austin seem
tremendously different.  My impression is that Crichton must have been
paying frantic attention to detail and kept crew and cast under
military control as the performances are often much more stiff and shots
of seem much more "planned".  This is the way I see it anyway, his episodes
being contrasted by other directors, most notably Austin who appears supremely
effective in achieving mood and getting the best ouf of the actors.

On the other hand, most of the Crichton episodes are on my list of
most liked episodes, while Austin seems to have been less lucky with
his material and therefore trying to make sense out of both some of the best
and worst of scripts, often resulting in style winning over content.

With Crichton I sometimes feel the otherway around, especially when it comes to
the chamber play sequences.  Many of my favourite episodes such as MATTER OF
LIFE AND DEATH, GUARDIAN OF PIRI and THE LAST SUNSET.  In WAR GAMES I also feel
the interior sequences of Act I seem all too calculated.  In prologue for
Austin's RING AROUND THE MOON, for instance, there is a very efficiant sense of
chaos I feel, highly in contrast with Crichton on most of his efforts.

> Both Tomblin and Austin were also very involved in general production
> decisions, not just their own episodes (as Katzin was initially).
> Tomblin was quite frustrated with it, so much so it was his last
> television series before he moved up to assistant directing on major
> blockbusters.

I wonder in what way Tomblin got frustrated.  Do you know the reason
why he was replaced by Kellett for three episodes?  Was this also due
to frustration or was he assigned on some other project?

Johnny Byrne has spoken very highly of Tomblin, and seems to have
appreaciated Tomblin's involvement in story development and realisation
immensly.  As I've heard, Byrne was even surprised that Tomblin didn't
become a major blockbuster director himself.

> They certainly had a major influence on developing stories
> and characters with Gerry, Penfold and Byrne. My impression is that di
> Lorenzo got squeezed out of this group who were the show's guiding
> force.

I understand Bellak was forced out in some way.  He didn't get along all
that well with Gerry Anderson I understand, or rather wasn't experiencing
SPACE:1999 as the happening of his lifetime as the others were apparently
doing.

Perhaps Gerry was having much of the same problem with Edward di Lorenzo.
While I personally rate the di Lorenzo scripts as some of the most
interesting contributions made for SPACE:1999, his focus on characters and
awareness may perhaps come across as too philosophically inclined for the
marked Gerry was aiming for and thus making room for conflict between the
two.

It would have been very interesting to read his original first drafts
for RING AROUND THE MOON, MISSING LINK and ALPHA CHILD.  I understood
Penfold did some heavy rewriting on all, especially on the latter one.

> In Year 2 everyone is clear that Freiberger ran everything with a
> rod of iron.

Fred Freiberger, the John Koenig of writer/producers!

> No, but Byrne and Penfold were very into the arts/writers scene in 1970s
> Britain, and of course Lovelock got the name Gaia from his neighbour,

SPACE:1999 as a mirror of the eary 1970s is a perspective I like very
much, but perhaps even more than that.  To me SPACE:1999 is more like
the science fiction of Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley and George
Orwell, a fantastic perspective on the world which in spite of mainly
being a reflection of its time still is highly interesting and enjoyable,
both in its own regards and also in other ways.

From my point of view it was one of the best television series ever.



From: Simon Morris (simes01@globalnet-co.uk)
Subject: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:39:54 +0100

Hello all again

Just saw Petters comments excerpted from an email to Martin Wiley and would
just add my personal comments in the spirit of healthy debate. (As I've
previously said,One Mans Meat is Another Mans Poison!)

Personally I don't think Helena comes over any worse in Y2 than in Y1. To
me,Helena in Y2 was given a personality by Freiberger (I'm not sure it was
fully 3 dimensional but lets settle for 2 dimensional heh heh). In Y1 she
didnt seem to me to have ANY real personality(other than the fact she
always seemed to be whispering all the time). Again I only view SPACE 1999
on a limited number of episodes so I can't myself see the complexities of
Helena's character in Y1 ---- it seems to me that the writers were in such
a tearing hurry and under such pressure they didn't have time to create
one. I also can't quite see why Barbara Bain being a difficult person(as
she is said to have been by some)would contribute to the character as it
was in Y1. Lets not forget that by their nature,actors have egos and many
are frequently difficult. Why should Bain be any different.

Also I don't see the Helena Russell character as being especially
contributory to MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH,BLACK SUN or RING AROUND THE MOON.
Ok...in MATTER she is part of the plot in that her husband appears. Also I
suppose she is more than normal a part of the plot in "RING". But other
than that don't you think the other characters contribute equally as much
Petter! I certainly do(mind you I would revise my opinion if I watched
"MATTER" or "RING" again...I have to admit that I never watch either as
they don't personally care much for either episode. "MATTER" I suspect was
heavily rewritten and doesnt come out well as a result(my personal opinion)
and RING just doesn't appeal to my own sense of what a good story is.
Therefore I personally do not see di Lorenzo's loss to the series as
particularly upsetting...but like I say,it would be boring if everyone
thought the same!

Yeah...I suppose Petter is right in what he says about Helena being
slightly sidelined in Y2. To me,Maya was a better character, (Freiberger
haters don't start sharpening the knives please...!)but again I can't see
that Bain particularly "vehicled wonderfully the complex psychological
elements". At least I don't think she would have contributed more to this
than any other cast member with a reasonable number of lines.

Ray Austin has directed a number of episodes of British action shows(or
arranged stunts for them). If I  remember rightly he was involved in shows
like THE PROFESSIONALS(cop show) and THE NEW AVENGERS. Great action shows
and well directed as befits a former stuntman. I was intrigued by your
thoughts on Austin's ability to achieve mood etc etc. I certainly thought
he was a competent director on the series and the action elements would
have been well handled.

I was pleased to see Petter mention the Y2 episode "THE IMMUNITY SYNDROME"
in tandem with "SPACE BRAIN" as I hope this indicates that he does view
certain Y2 episodes as having the depth of certain Y1 episodes. When we
reach the end of the Y2 discussions I look forward to seeing what if Johnny
Byrne used as an inspiration for IMMUNITY SYNDROME...an episode i
personally quite enjoyed and which I think he wrote merely to get
Freiberger off his back!!

Anyway,thats my tuppence worth. And now I'm definitely off on holiday......



From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi1tag.no)
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:38:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Re: Freiberger and Friends

> Just saw Petters comments excerpted from an email to Martin Wiley and would
> just add my personal comments in the spirit of healthy debate. (As I've
> previously said,One Mans Meat is Another Mans Poison!)

I agree, healthy debates are good.

> Personally I don't think Helena comes over any worse in Y2 than in Y1. To
> me,Helena in Y2 was given a personality by Freiberger (I'm not sure it was
> fully 3 dimensional but lets settle for 2 dimensional heh heh).

I like this kind of humour.  Yes, I also agree there was a dimention to Helena
in Y2.  Heh heh.

> In Y1 she didnt seem to me to have ANY real personality [....]

Well, here we seem to have different opinions, or at least read the
characterisation differently.  From my point of view Barbara Bain did
a marvellous job in creating Helena as she was portrayed in BREAKAWAY and
later episodes, the first ones in particular.

I see Helena basically as woman who is not especially unhappy with her
appearance and does hence not need to charm men in the manner of Kara or
Dionne.  As I understand, Bain was a photo model and a dancer before she
attended acting, and the awareness of her own features and beauty that I
assume must be needed in that line of work I believe also in focus as to
how she portrays Helena as such a controlled person.

It seems to me that Helena, much similar to Victor, is a person who
uses her own potential passivly as a sophisticated method of achieving
her goals.  She appears extremely systematic in her work, and she is
obviously more of a medical research scientist than a practitioner.

My impression is that she goes about with her work much like a proud
more or less aristocratic housewife would do at the time.  Her living
quarters, as displayed in MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, seem simple and
elegant, very classy, as one would expect from someone like her.

Speaking silently does not seem to make any problems in communication.
On the contrary, the only people who dare to override her are John and
sometimes Victor.  Victor at least snips off bits of her sentences in
SPACE BRAIN and perhaps other episodes as well.

Helena seems extremly controlled, almost to the extent that one would
expect her to explode at any moment, at least so it appears to me, and,
in fact, in the wonderfully psychologically interesting END OF ETERNITY,
Balor manages to tease her into that.

Obviously Helena Russell can not settle for anyone less than John Koenig.
Even if Victor were younger, I get the impression that she would not go
for the most sophisticated of men, but rather for the one who dominates
the most.

Lee Russell appears to be a very similar character to Koenig, although
a bit more sophisticated perhaps.  As I understand in Art Wallace's
original concept of MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH the theme of jealousy was
to play a much more prominent role in a much more emotional script
than the one that was almost completely rewritten by Johnny Byrne.

Martin has some facinating information on this on his site.

> I also can't quite see why Barbara Bain being a difficult person(as
> she is said to have been by some)would contribute to the character as it
> was in Y1. Lets not forget that by their nature,actors have egos and many
> are frequently difficult. Why should Bain be any different.

As I've understood, both the Landaus were difficult to handle, and perhaps
even Barry Morse too, although he seems like very much of a gentleman
to me, very much as though he was just playing himself being Victor.

I assume both being an actor and having to deal with actors is a very
difficult thing, and I don't know if Barbara Bain was very different
from other stars.  Of course the Landaus were forreigners in Britain
and did perhaps feel a need to emphasize their part in the project to
reassure themselves that they were very much needed in order to make
the series work.  Perhaps Freiberger felt similarily too as he joined
the lot later on.

Obviously there were difficulties with the Landaus.  Bob Kellett and
Val Guest are two of the directors who have been quoted saying this.
Apparently Barbara was especially difficult, and seems to have been
referred to by both as a pain.

Now, dr. Helena Russell does also seem to be a very strongheaded woman
who does not take no as an answer.  In many episodes there seems to be
a play on this as John tells her to stay out of something.  She looks
puzzled for a short moment, and then does what she finds right.  BLACK
SUN and DRAGON'S DOMAIN both contain such wonderful moments, I remember.

Just like Martin Landau seems to draw experience from his Brooklyn
delinquency background, in order to create Koenig as a man who likes
to shout, dominate and sometimes even inferiorate others, Barbara Bain
seem to express that she does not take commands from just anybody.  In
fact, I believe it was Bain who insisted on MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE director
Lee H. Katzin to do the initial SPACE:1999 episodes as she obviously
respected him and was willing to follow his instructions.

> Also I don't see the Helena Russell character as being especially
> contributory to MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH,BLACK SUN or RING AROUND THE MOON.
> Ok...in MATTER she is part of the plot in that her husband appears. Also I
> suppose she is more than normal a part of the plot in "RING".

As in yesterdays reminder of the John Boomershine joke about RING AROUND
URANUS telling of the climax for his episode would be 16 minutes of
Helena's hurried typing, RING AROUND THE MOON is an episode that
revolves very much around Helena Russell, I feel.  More than just having
more than a normal part of the plot, she becomes the central character,
I feel, both as the one who explains the Ted Clifford experience
and as a tool of the Tritons.  I can't remember any episode apart from
MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH where she was such a vital clue to the plot.

> But other
> than that don't you think the other characters contribute equally as much
> Petter!

BREAKAWAY, MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, BLACK SUN and RING AROUND THE MOON
are my favourite episodes, the four top episodes on my list.  In all of
these I feel there is an unusual vitality to all the characters.  In all
these the main three protagonists seem to be in top form and contribute
all excellently.  Even lesser characters like Alan, Paul, Sandra, Tanya,
dr. Mathias and Kano do some of their best work in these ones, I feel.
For me not at least MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH and RING AROUND THE MOON seem
to be excemplary vehicles for the supporting cast.

> I certainly do(mind you I would revise my opinion if I watched
> "MATTER" or "RING" again...I have to admit that I never watch either as
> they don't personally care much for either episode. "MATTER" I suspect was
> heavily rewritten and doesnt come out well as a result(my personal opinion)
> and RING just doesn't appeal to my own sense of what a good story is.
> Therefore I personally do not see di Lorenzo's loss to the series as
> particularly upsetting...but like I say,it would be boring if everyone
> thought the same!

Di Lorenzo's work seem to have been slightly decreasing in quality, I feel,
writing the much less satisfying MISSING LINK after the supreme RING
AROUND THE MOON.  Mind you, MISSING LINK is also a very good episode as
far as I'm concerned, but I assume it would be difficult to make another
effort on the same level as RING AROUND THE MOON.  Some of the brilliance
in RING AROUND THE MOON does seem to shine through in MISSING LINK at
times, though, especially in the segments of conversation between
Landau and Cushing.

ALPHA CHILD is the least successful di Lorenzo adaption, I feel.  In this
case the original script seem to have been rewritten to such an extent
that Penfold has decided to take sole credit for it, probably rightfully
too.  The idea of using children to foretell the future and as an indicator
on the present quality of life is a good one though, I feel, and I assume
Johnny Byrne wanted to rework this concept in a better fashion with his
CHILDREN OF THE GODS that could have been his ultimate achievement but was
never filmed due to changes in format from Year One to Year Two.

> Yeah...I suppose Petter is right in what he says about Helena being
> slightly sidelined in Y2. To me,Maya was a better character, (Freiberger
> haters don't start sharpening the knives please...!)but again I can't see
> that Bain particularly "vehicled wonderfully the complex psychological
> elements". At least I don't think she would have contributed more to this
> than any other cast member with a reasonable number of lines.

I think Barbara Bain's complex character of Year One seem close to ridiculous
in Year Two.  It's hard to blame Barbara for this, however, as a middle aged
acress competing with the young and lovely Catherine Schell on terms
provided by new concept develloper Freiberger.  Barbara and Cathrine had
of course previously met during THE GUARDIAN OF PIRI, and within this
context both succeeded extremly well, I think.

It is also hard to blame Freiberger, I feel.  I assume he had an equally
great problem having to fit Landau and perhaps Bain in particular with his
concepts.  One of Freiberger's major contributions to the series as a writer,
THE RULES OF LUTON, was not too have included Landau and Bain at all, I
understand, wanting this to be an adventure centred on Tony and Maya.
Watching his two other efforts, they also seem consistent with this in
respect.

> Ray Austin has directed a number of episodes of British action shows(or
> arranged stunts for them). If I  remember rightly he was involved in shows
> like THE PROFESSIONALS(cop show) and THE NEW AVENGERS. Great action shows
> and well directed as befits a former stuntman. I was intrigued by your
> thoughts on Austin's ability to achieve mood etc etc. I certainly thought
> he was a competent director on the series and the action elements would
> have been well handled.

Austin struck me as extraordinary adept at making an episode like RING AROUND
THE MOON with its obviously modest budjet work as compared to the episodes
that included enormous sets and stupenous special effects.

In addition to RING AROUND THE MOON I also find his work on MISSING LINK
extraordinary, both of these using and abundance of imageniative camera angles,
camera movements, light, colour, but, most of all, an exceptional ability to
make the actors live their roles, not just hand out odd lines.  Thinking of
Victor Bergman in his living quarters LQ12 in RING AROUND THE MOON, I feel that
this is prof. Bergman flesh and bones, eating and talking at the same time,
rambling on, almost incoherrently about computers, calculations and old
scriptures.  It doesn't really mean very much what he says, di Lorenzo's or
Penfold's text feels somewhat in the background as he gestures and talks just
like one would imagine a Victor Bergman would be.  Perfect, absolutely perfect!

While I like all of Austin's achievments, some are even more impressive than
others.  For me THE END OF ETERNITY comes across as an episode that could
have become significantly less sucesscul if it were not for Austin.

> I was pleased to see Petter mention the Y2 episode "THE IMMUNITY SYNDROME"
> in tandem with "SPACE BRAIN" as I hope this indicates that he does view
> certain Y2 episodes as having the depth of certain Y1 episodes. When we
> reach the end of the Y2 discussions I look forward to seeing what if Johnny
> Byrne used as an inspiration for IMMUNITY SYNDROME...an episode i
> personally quite enjoyed and which I think he wrote merely to get
> Freiberger off his back!!

This was an interesting perspective, and perhaps there is something to it
as well.  The script for THE IMMUNITY SYNDROM started as something
called THE FACE OF EDEN, I believe, and apparently went through several
changes before Freiberger, perhaps reluctantly, was giving his approval
of it.  Freiberger says he was less strict as the series went on.

There are some very interesting writing about THE FACE OF EDEN on Martin's
site.

According to Byrne, with his next and final script for Year Two, THE
DORCONS, he didn't have the energy for more fights with Freiberger and
constructed it as to having fit in with Freibergers universe in mind.



[EDITOR'S NOTE:  The topic starts drifting to a different topic,
                 which I have separated into a thread called
                 Landau's Portrayal.]