Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:48:38 -0500
From: David Welle (dwelle@itol4tag.com)
Subject: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award [FWD from Robert]
Fowarding this note from Robert. Wow, here's one "award" I wouldn't want
either.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Separated below.]
From: cybrarian@cybrary1999.com
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 12:12:34 -0600
Subject: Rejected BBC Award
Reply-to: cybrarian@cybrary1999.com
Hi David:
I've just rejected an award for the Cybrary from the BBC. Please
forward the following. I thought it might be interesting to people to
get an insight into corporate think around Space: 1999. They told
me the site won an award but after reading all their rules I was left
with the impression I'd really won the right to perform a service for
them (exactly as they told me to, or else). Rather than feel
flattered I was left feeling repeatedly insulted.
Robert
___________________
From: "webguide"
To:
Subject: Congratulations! Your Website is One to Watch!
Date sent: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 17:29:56 +0100
> Beeb is the commercial side of the BBC on the web, one of the
> biggest websites in the UK.
>
> We produce several unique webzines including BBC RTguide, a divison
> of the Radio Times, which has carefully selected you as a
> One-to-Watch website.
>
> In recognition of this you can display the One to Watch award logo
> (attached to this e-mail) for a limited period subject to the terms
> and conditions below.
>
> Please link the image http://www.beeb.com/. A review of your
> website will appear periodically at
> http://www.rtguide.beeb.com/webguide/.
>
> BBC Worldwide Limited grants permission to publish the One-to-Watch
> icon on http://www.cybrary1999.com/awards.htm subject to the
> following conditions:
>
> the icon shall appear on your site for three months commencing 9th
> September 1998.
>
> the use of the icon shall be limited only to the identified
> website and next to the defined content as outlined above.
>
> the icon shall not be changed, altered in any way whatsoever.
>
> the icon shall click through to the homepage of the beeb site or
> any other destination named by the beeb representative.
>
> the icon shall not be used for any publicity or marketing purposes
> unless otherwise agreed in writing by beeb.
>
> beeb shall not be held responsible for any legal actions arising
> from content within your service.
>
> beeb reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time.
From: Self
To: "webguide"
Subject: Re: Congratulations! Your Website is One to Watch!
Send reply to: cybrarian@cybrary1999.com
Date sent: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:52:52 -0600
Thanks for the recognition, but I think I'll pass on adding this award
to my web site. You might be interested in hearing why.
First of all, did I win it or didn't I? Imagine an actor who wins an
Oscar but is then told they have to return it in 90 days. Did they
win it in that case? Seems not.
Second, the Awards page at my site is a record of awards the site
has won (nine to date, ten with yours [so in three months it reverts
to nine again, like it never happened, right?]). What's the point?
I've never been much into revisionist history, nor do I like control
freaks presenting me with a lengthy list of EXACTLY how and
where I should present an award on my own site. You made me
feel like I was supposed to be performing a service for you rather
than like I won something. You can keep your "award."
Third, I went to your site and tried to see the review you wrote, but I
couldn't even get the pages to load and never did have any clear
sense of where I should be looking. Your web site seems -- like
most things touched by software programmers -- to be designed
from the creator's point of view rather than the end user's. Why
would you want to put people through this aggravation? I'm not
talking about a minute or two of waiting for the page to load, but
more like five minutes or more, even though I'm on the fastest
connection available. What's someone with a 28.8 or slower
connection going to go through? Who is being served by this? It's
fun to design pages with all the bells and whistles, I'm sure, but I
think you should remember that the reason you're designing these
pages is for the end user. Maybe I should be reviewing your site
instead of you reviewing mine.
If I know my review is at your site and even I can't find it, I can't
imagine anyone else is going to somehow stumble across it. After
OVER five minutes of waiting, a web search at your site for "Space
1999" finally found the following:
"Space: 1999 Cybrary
An enormous resource for fans of Gerry Anderson's cult science
fiction masterpiece, first unleashed on the world in 1975. Relive
your favourite episodes from the two 24-episode series which,
despite enormous budgets, managed to make Dr Who look like a
Spielberg production."
Thanks. I think the only thing you said about the site in your
review is that it's "enormous." While I find constructive criticism
stimulating and thought provoking, I don't appreciate the last
comment in your review (and yes, I understand that it's directed at
the show rather than specifically to my site). This is but a single
person's opinion and not very flattering to anyone who might be
interested in checking out the site, so again, what's the point of
listing it in the first place? The average viewer may never "get" first
season Space: 1999, but for those of us who have tired of black
and white cookie cutter dramatization and characterization being
spoon fed to us, and that assumes the viewer has an IQ in the
single digits, Space: 1999 -- flaws and all -- is an enduring, thought
provoking, landmark classic that brings us back again and again;
and, I'm happy to report, continues to be discovered anew and
appreciated for the same reasons by a new generation of viewers.
Beyond that, it's a beautifully designed series that has aged hardly
at all, and it was ahead of its time in many ways, preceding "Star
Wars" with its miniature work and films like Alien with the episode
"Dragon's Domain" and others, but most of all it's enduring and
original, and not another retread of Star Trek.
For the reasons cited above, while I've never rejected an award
before, I thank you, but I respectfully decline your award and will
not be posting it on my web site.
Sincerely,
Robert Ruiz
Site Administrator
Space: 1999 Cybrary
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com)
To: "David Welle" (dwelle@itol4tag.com), (space1999@buffnet4.buff44net.net)
Cc: (cybrarian@cybrary1999tag.com), (webguide@beeb4tag.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award [FWD from Robert]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:29:19 -0500
Right On!
Could not have improved upon that one bit, very well put Robert!
Its people like that guy, who still look at everything in the shadow of
trek, that are why we are spoon-fed crapola by the networks and no one
wants to do original, thought provoking, creative work anymore. How can he
say Dr Who looks like a Spielberg production(what the hell is this guy
watching!), when Space:1999 clearly has the superior production values,
better than Dr, Who, better than Trek, and at least in the first season,
some of the best Sci-Fi writing ever put on film! Space:1999 stands on it
own merits, PERIOD!
I think we ALL should drop this pinhead a line or two.
-Mark
From: David Acheson (dkach@hot44mail.com)
Subject: Space1999: The Award to the Cybrary
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:29:32 EDT
I can't believe it! I am glad Robert Ruiz had the decency to give Beeb
(and the BBC) the heave-ho by rejecting the so-called "award" he got
from them. What an insult indeed to be awarded the chance to advertise
for corporate big brother on their terms and to have them throw
retreated negative criticism towards the series that they were awarding
him for.
I am sure they are back in their office scratching their heads over why
someone would actually reject an award! Some people just don't get it.
Thanks go to Robert for standing up to this garbage.
David Acheson
From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: The Award to the Cybrary
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:04:50 -0500
Hi David,
I set my reply to BBC as well, I think EVERYONE should drop them a line.
Let's show Robert a little support, eh? Send to this address:
webguide@beeb.com
Below is Roberts reply to my message.
Mark
plastic.gravity@newrock.com
> I think we ALL should drop this pinhead a line or two.
I like that idea. :)
Talk about a backhanded compliment. The Reader's Digest version
would read:
Hi. Congratulations. You won an award -- but only for 90 days,
then you have to pretend it never happened. Oh yeah, you also
need to read this phone book length list of rules regarding how you
can present the award and we'll tell you the EXACT page on YOUR
site you can add it too. Don't deviate or else! We wrote a review.
Summarized: This show is crap but at least the site's extensive.
Fuck them. They can keep their damned award.
Robert
From: "Jeff Doyle" (jdoyle@computer44land.net)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award [FWD from Robert]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:23:48 -0700
Greetings Alphans,
I think it is plain that the folks at the BBC website simply have not even
seen our favorite show. They are simply going by 23 year old prejudice;
when 1999 came out in the mid-seventies it was far ahead of its time. It
was compared mercelessly with the origional Star Trek, and was found
wanting; largely because it was not Trek.
As a result, any defect in 1999 became to many Trekkies (most sci-fi fans
of the time were Trek nuts) a fatal flaw.
Now don't get me wrong, I am a diehard Old Trek fan, but am upset with the
"Trek is King and nothing else is good sci-fi, fans" Frankly it was their
close-mindedness that killed 1999. ST should never have been cancelled so
early and definately should have been brought back in the mid-seventies,
origional crew, et al. Trekkies of the mid-seventies (as was I) felt
betrayed by the non-return of the show - and in doings so turned their
wrath against the new substitute. While I loved both shows almost
equally, I was certainly in the minority. I feel that if Trek had returned
before 1999's premier, 1999 would have survived, because it would not be
viewed as the new upstart show. Instead it could have taken a place next
to Trek, as Indeed it was more than worthy.
I loved 1999, and still do. In many respects it holds up better than old
Trek. While some of its special effects look a bit dated by our standards,
they were always very creative, and there are still a handful of shots that
look super even by today's standards.
1. the destuction of the "bomber" by Alan in War Games. 2. The shot of the
Eagle carrying the glider as it enters the atmosphere of the planet in "the
Immunity Syndrome." How can that BBC guy even compare this with DR.
Who?????????????? Sheer ignorance based on 23 year old prejudice is the
only explaination.
One of the main things that 1999 was critized for back then was the
so-called wooden acting. However, no mention is seemingly ever made of
Star Trek: the Pepsi Generation/ Al Gore emulation society in space. By
comparison to the Pepsi Gen - 1999's cast is loose and emotive. I feel
that, with a little computer touch up of S1999's effects, and proper
promotion - 1999 could be the big hit it was always intended it would be.
Compared to the garbage that passes for science fiction today, S1999 is a
masterpiece of television.
-Jeff
From: "Mark Meskin" (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com)
Subject: Space1999: Fw: The Cybrary Award
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:25:05 -0500
I hope David doesn't mind, but I'm fowarding this back to the list. Its
on-topic, and something we all should read.
Mark
> From: David Acheson (dkach@hot44mail.com)
> Subject: The Cybrary Award
> Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 9:50 PM
>
> Hi Mark:
>
> I agree fully with you on the point you made about us all writing to
> Beeb and voice our complaint against their tactics. It wasn't so much
> the negative criticism against 1999 itself but the shameful excuse for
> giving Robert the wonderful pleasure to advertise their site while
> stabbing him in the back at the same time. Why would someone want to
> point to another site that does nothing but bad mouth the very subject
> you are dedicating your resources on?
>
> I wrote both to Robert (to congratulate him for rejecting the award) and
> to Beeb (where I voiced my concerns against their tactics).
>
> David Acheson
From: "Simon Morris" (simes01@global44net.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award [FWD from Robert]
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:18:19 +0100
I think this illustrates just how arrogant the BBC is becoming. Those of us who
live in the UK have to pay a licence fee of £100 or so a year to fund this
overstaffed and bureaucratic dinosaur. It wants it all ways. It refuses to
accept advertising as it believes this will affect its "quality",yet advertises
its own products continually. It professes to be a public service but
quietly(and agressively) pursues some of the most single minded commercial and
marketing activities of any media organization. It constantly tells the British
Public(in the face of ever-increasing opposition to its huge costs and
wastefulness)that its tv and radiois the highest quality in the world. Well
much of it is. But they conveniently forget the ever increasing diet of soap
operas,crappy quiz shows, hidden camera shows and "people" shows which are
forming an ever larger proportion of their output.
The BBC ran a campaign a few months ago to the effect "You Make Us What We Are"
(another campaign aimed at getting us to pay our licence fees at a time when
they were spending less on production and more and more on senior executive
salaries). Thousands of BBC jobs have been shed-many on the production
side-whilst the Director General and his cronies get ever-increasing salaries
and perks. Programmes are commisioned from independent producers at great
cost(though,according to the Beeb,cheaper than if they were done in-house)and
while there are nuggets of gold screened as a result,there is a huge amount of
crap too.
There has been some criticism in the British Press about BBC webpages,which
along with all other BBC commercial efforts are solely designed to promote the
BBC(NO OTHER REASON). That they have been difficult to access,slow to
download,etc etc. I would also agree with Mark that its quite obvious that
whoever wrote to Robert Ruiz has never seen SPACE 1999. What we are seeing here
is,once again,the British media trying to be clever and write what they think
are witty lines without having much regard for accuracy. DR WHO and other BBC
productions(witness the recent "Invasion Earth")have never been able to match
the sort of effects that were seen in Anderson productions-and BBC SFX staff
would(and have)readily admit this. The high production values of SPACE 1999 are
a matter of world record,and the ignorance of the person who claims it makes DR
WHO look like a Spielberg production shames the BBC.
Or is he/she saying that they think they are spending licence payers money on
low quality crap? I think their superiors would be interested to hear
that......
I shall be copying this to the Beeb. People who put out crap like this ought to
be sacked but there's not much chance of that. Thousands who *could*do the job
have been fired from the BBC in recent years as part of "savings" and
"rationalisation"(doesn't stop the BBC demanding the Government raise the
licence fee every year though),and paradoxically its the useless bastards left
in a job. Robert Ruiz was right to turn down the "award". In my opinion his
reply to them was far too polite.
Like I've said recently: "Rule Brittania"? Never in a million years.
Simon Morris
From: "Ariana" (ariana@ndirect4tag.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award [FWD from Robert]
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:00:07 +0100
>There has been some criticism in the British Press about BBC webpages,which
>along with all other BBC commercial efforts are solely designed to promote
>the BBC(NO OTHER REASON).
Hehe. You probably don't realise this, but I actually work for the company
that makes those Web pages (our own national ICL), and my boyfriend knows
some of the people who designed them. Yep. Your average geeks with a "wow!
look what we can do" attitude and a desire to make something really flash,
regardless of how practical it's going to be.
A few months ago, they changed the schedule for Radio 4 LW, which is my
mother's only connection, in France, to her homeland. Rather than get my
father to painstakingly surf through the Web pages with his dodgy modem, she
asked me to check out the schedule, since I have a LAN connection at work
(though I sometimes wonder if the Proxy server isn't connected to a 14K
modem... but I digress). Well, three weeks later (*litterally*!) I found
it... It was like looking for product support on the Microsoft Web site...
<g>
Enough from me...
Emma
From: "Brian Dowling" (brian@hellion.prestel4tag.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:30:03 +0100
Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award
Hi folks,
Boy has it been busy - 32 messages in one afternoon! I do have one
request, however... PLEASE can we drop the Ring Around The Moon
thread? We discussed it during the ExE exercise, now we're well past it.
Please let's leave this one alone, it's almost getting like spam!
Nuff respect to Robert for telling the BBC to go stick their award up their
corporate arses! As I read what they sent him, I got really steamed up
and very p****d off.
There's no way that any sci fi (or, for that matter, anything at all) the BBC
produced in what I would call its "classic" period (1953-1989) had
anything like the production values Space:1999 had! And that's speaking
as someone who is a confirmed Doomwatch, Doctor Who, Quatermass
and Blake's 7 fan. How Doctor Who could ever have been compared to a
Spielberg production is ludicrous in the extreme and the specimen who
made that comment displayed extreme levels of ignorance.
> > I think we ALL should drop this pinhead a line or two.
Damn right Mark!
Simon wrote:
> I think this illustrates just how arrogant the BBC is becoming.
It professes to be an accountable public service but does not give straight
answers to questions from those who fund it - witness the continual
refusal of the BBC to tell me exactly what they were doing with
Space:1999 as a typical example. Witness also its news channel,
available only to cable and satellite viewers, who number some 2 million
compared to the 20 plus million others who fund the BBC and do not see
it. Not that they're missing much, the whole thing looks like a rush job
and is more reminiscent of a 6th form media studies project than a
professional news service.
> It constantly tells the British Public(in the face of
> ever-increasing opposition to its huge costs and wastefulness)that its tv
> and radiois the highest quality in the world. Well much of it is. But they
> conveniently forget the ever increasing diet of soap operas,crappy quiz
> shows, hidden camera shows and "people" shows which are forming an ever
> larger proportion of their output.
That their televison and radio output is the highest quality in the world
may well have been true up to the mid 1980s, but I see very little
evidence to back that claim up now. I watch very little of BBC1 or BBC2
regularly, apart from one hour on Mondays. The rest is mostly cable
channels. Occasionally there are good documentaries, most often co-
productions with US or Australian tv stations, but rarely is there something
which matches the peaks from the 1970s.
Programmes are commisioned from
> independent producers at great cost(though,according to the Beeb,cheaper
> than if they were done in-house)and while there are nuggets of gold
> screened as a result,there is a huge amount of crap too.
I struggle to remember recent BBC programmes where I've been
impressed with the quality of the programme. The documentary Plague
Wars was good, a co-production if I remember rightly, but aside from that
I have seen little to impress me. Oh, how I do yearn for the days where I
read my TV Times and thought "I must watch that!"...
As far as the BBC's pathetic attempts to justify its existence and licence
fee go, what a miserably transparent effort to convince the people of the
UK to continue funding it. If you buy a dodgy product you can take it
back and get a refund or replacement. Not with the BBC, however.
There was another campaign where the BBC claimed to be passionate
about whatever the viewer was passionate about, and that you could
indulge your passions through its programmes. What complete bollocks!
My passions include gothic... no, better keep that one off-list... :-)
Two of my passions: rock music - the BBC does not have a rock music
show on its radio stations, and hasn't for a few years now. In the years
preceding, it scaled down the rock content to the point where one hour a
week was all we got. Rock music on tv? The Old Grey Whistle Test was
one of the best music showcases ever, and that got canned with no
replacement.
Science fiction: Thorny subject at the BBC, this one. TV60 was a
"celebration" of the BBC's 60th anniversary. Doctor Who had not been
made for 7 years or so. What won the vote as the best series ever made
by the BBC? Doctor Who. How can you ignore such a massive mandate
as that? If you've got your head embedded firmly up your ass then you
can, appears to be the BBC's answer. There's The X-Files and assorted
Trek, if you want to wait until Sky have finished with them. But no decent
home made product since 1989! Yet the BBC continue to exploit the
Doctor Who name with crap like "Destiny of the Doctors" (Hell, Destiny of
the Daleks was better, and that was bad enough!) and the dire tv movie
which even Paul McGann couldn't save.
How can they be passionate about things which they have turned their
backs on?
Oh-oh, I'm getting near rant mode... you see my point, though?
> There has been some criticism in the British Press about BBC
> webpages,which along with all other BBC commercial efforts are solely
> designed to promote the BBC(NO OTHER REASON). That they have been
> difficult to access,slow to download,etc etc.
The BBC website sucks. Period. The charges for a banner ad on their
site are ludicrous. I don't recall the exact figure offhand, but when I
heard it, I almost choked on my lunch. It's a major work of self-
glorification which wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't used licence fee
payers' money on it.
> I would also agree with Mark
> that its quite obvious that whoever wrote to Robert Ruiz has never seen
> SPACE 1999.
So much for excellence of journalism and research.
> What we are seeing here is,once again,the British media trying to be
> clever and write what they think are witty lines without
> having much regard for accuracy.
The words "clever" and "British media" can never go together.
> Or is he/she saying that they think they
> are spending licence payers money on low quality crap? I think their
> superiors would be interested to hear that......
Low quallity crap? Looks like we're talking Neighbours, folks. The BBC
SFX crews (I remember Mat Irvine saying something about the sets and
FX on B7 which made me laugh.. I was 8 years old at the time) have
always said that non-BBC productions do tend to be significantly better in
the FX department.
Robert Ruiz was right to turn down
> the "award". In my opinion his reply to them was far too polite.
>
> Like I've said recently: "Rule Brittania"? Never in a million years.
Over the last few months how many times have I agreed with you Simon?
What else can I say apart from a resounding HEAR HEAR!
By way of an aside to this, if you think I've got it in for the BBC then
you're most likely right. I staunchly believe that the Royal Charter (piece
of legislation which forces each home to pay annually a tax of 100 quid to
the BBC) should be revoked and the BBC forced to compete in the real
world. Watch out for a link to the Argument for Licence Fee Abolition on
the UKVL soon.
It's interesting to see how well channels like UK Gold and Granada Plus
are doing by showing a lot of the stuff the likes of the BBC refuse to make
any more.
Rant over.
Hang on...
A reminder - can we *please* drop the Ring Around The Moon thing? I
didn't think too hihgly of it before it became a regular thing here, but now
I am getting to hate the story completely. Flogging a dead horse is a
serious understatement here - please finish it now!
Now rant over.
From: "Simon Morris" (simes01@global44net.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Rejected BBC Award
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:17:52 +0100
Ref the BBC,Brian wrote:
>It professes to be an accountable public service but does not give straight
>answers to questions from those who fund it - witness the continual
>refusal of the BBC to tell me exactly what they were doing with
>Space:1999 as a typical example.
Too right. When there was some doubt as to what the BBC were going to do with
SPACE 1999,I emailed the appropriate department via the BBC website expressing
my annoyance at this and also at the way UFO had been dumped from the schedules
without warning or explanation. The BBC say that one of the reasons for their
website is so that they are in touch with their licence payers. Hah. I never
had the courtesy of a reply,let alone an explanation.
>That their televison and radio output is the highest quality in the world
>may well have been true up to the mid 1980s, but I see very little
>evidence to back that claim up now.
Yeah. British TV used to be fantastic years ago. I think this is because there
was less of it then. What with 24 hour tv,increased commercialism and the need
by BBC and ITV to "make a profit",there's less risk-taking now and they pander
to the lowest common denominator. Millions watch soap operas(partly coz theres
nothing else to watch). Lets make more soap operas. They're cheap. They're
safe. They get ratings. etc etc Of course they get ratings. There's nothing
else to watch-Its a vicious circle!
>I struggle to remember recent BBC programmes where I've been
>impressed with the quality of the programme. The documentary Plague
>Wars was good, a co-production if I remember rightly, but aside from that
>I have seen little to impress me. Oh, how I do yearn for the days where I
>read my TV Times and thought "I must watch that!"...
(Simon nods sadly in agreement.........)
>There was another campaign where the BBC claimed to be passionate
>about whatever the viewer was passionate about, and that you could
>indulge your passions through its programmes. What complete bollocks!
Well,what they meant was that the BBC would be passionate about what their
viewers were passionate about.......AS LONG AS it was what the BBC *wanted* to
be passionate about. So despite the uproar about BLAKES 7 finishing(and the way
it finished):the BBC ignored all protests. Same about DR WHO I suppose.....
>The BBC website sucks. Period. The charges for a banner ad on their
>site are ludicrous. I don't recall the exact figure offhand, but when I
>heard it, I almost choked on my lunch. It's a major work of self-
>glorification which wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't used licence fee
>payers' money on it.
Indeed. And this is why the BBC "award" to the Cybrary was an insult to Robert
Ruiz and to SPACE 1999. Merely a sleazy and underhand commercial rip-off.
>By way of an aside to this, if you think I've got it in for the BBC then
>you're most likely right. I staunchly believe that the Royal Charter (piece
>of legislation which forces each home to pay annually a tax of 100 quid to
>the BBC) should be revoked and the BBC forced to compete in the real
>world. Watch out for a link to the Argument for Licence Fee Abolition on
>the UKVL soon.
Well I have to say that I also have a vested interest here. I object to paying
the licence fee for the crap that's being served up and for subsidising BBC
Worldwide's commercial activities.
Simon